CNN attacks Glenn

GLENN: That's interesting. We have the latest from Fareed Zakaria. Fareed Zakaria, so you know, is a guy on television, I think CNN, and he's got a show called GPS. I don't know what -- I think it's a travel show or something. And Fareed is --

PAT: It might as well be.

STU: It would get more ratings.

PAT: It would.

GLENN: Fareed Zakaria has taken me on. Do we have the audio?

PAT: Yeah, we do.

GLENN: This is from something that I said in an offhanded comment last week.

PAT: No. Two -- I think it's two weeks ago.

STU: I believe it was last week.

PAT: Oh, it was?

STU: Potentially Monday.

GLENN: So, it was just an offhanded comment and this is -- everybody is focusing on one thing on this comment and here it is.

ZAKARIA: There are 1.57 billion Muslims worldwide. Take 10% of those Muslims and you get 157 million. That's how many Muslim terrorists Glenn Beck is suggesting there are in the world, 157 million.

STU: Million.

PAT: 10 percent of --

ZAKARIA: -- why this wasn't receiving any media coverage.

PAT: No, he didn't.

(Crosstalk.)

STU: By the way, just when we're talking, because -- the reason why people aren't covering this is because it's total nonsense. Now, I know with 100% certainty that he knows, Fareed Zakaria knows that what he just said is completely a lie. He knows it's not based on nonsense. He knows the poll it's based on. He's seen the blog because he shows it later on. He knows exactly what that claim is based on.

PAT: No, we actually looked at our response to it and still offered this nonsense?

STU: Yeah. He went into it. His point was that your use of the -- he said I got you off on a technicality because I used the dictionary definition of the word. Now, when the dictionary starts becoming technicality, I don't know -- I mean, we're not 2 plus 2 equals 5, are we not?

GLENN: May I? It's the definition of is. We're talking about the definition of terrorist.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, here's his point. We're talking about 10% of the population and this is, by the way, a low number to many of -- to -- according to -- give me the name of this research report, because it's the one that is used by the Huffington Post and --

PAT: World public opinion.

GLENN: Yeah. This is a very well-known and well established -- this isn't some crazy --

STU: No.

PAT: Some right wing poll.

GLENN: Yeah. It's not some right wing poll. This is a very stable poll and this is the one everyone uses when they're talking about terror and everything else and the numbers are much greater than 10%.

STU: If you talk about -- I was defining terrorism in many ways. If you talk about specifically supporting attacks against civilians in the United States, it ranges from 4 to 56, I think it is.

GLENN: 4 to 56% and that is --

PAT: Depending on what country you live in

STU: 10 to -- sorry. It's 10 to 39. 4 to 56 is another poll, 10 to 39%. Now, you can get higher than 10, obviously. There are some countries, there are few that you can get lower than for hard core support and not just I support it sometimes when they kill innocent civilians in the United States but I mean the bottom line is there's blatant -- higher than what you stilled all across the Muslim world.

GLENN: What he's trying to say is there is a difference between someone who actually does it and someone who actually supports it.

STU: That's true.

GLENN: Well --

STU: There's a difference.

GLENN: There is a difference.

STU: His thought is there is only -- get this -- a paltry 11,000 terror strikes last year.

STU: Only.

PAT: 11,000. And then he goes through this ridiculous exercise of multiplying that by 100 people per -- and that only adds up to 1.1 million.

GLENN: It doesn't --

STU: Only.

PAT: Only.

GLENN: Only 1.1 million. It only took 18 to bring down the World Trade Center and that was one of the many points. I doesn't matter -- I mean, the numbers are overwhelming. It only takes 18, but for him to go on this is completely disingenuous.

STU: Completely.

GLENN: If I said to Fareed Zakaria, Fareed, I don't -- I'm not going to kill you but I support the people who do want to kill you, am I a problem, Fareed?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Yes, yes. I would be a problem. If you said to somebody, Hey, Glenn, I don't -- I'm not going to kill you myself, but, man, I am all in with -- I don't have a problem with anyone wanting to take bare hands and just snap your neck. Excuse me?

STU: Yeah. I'm sure he would be immediately on the air for defending you for those comments.

GLENN: Oh of course, of course. No, Glenn's not making threats. Glenn's not any trouble. I actively support, I vocally support, yeah, I think he should die. I think he should be killed. That's ridiculous.

STU: And, again, for those who have missed the previous segment on this, the definition of terrorist is someone who uses or advocates terrorism.

GLENN: That is the definition. That is the dictionary definition No. 1.

STU: Yeah, No. 1, the first one. And it's interesting dust because --

PAT: You had to look clear down to 1 to get that? What a stretch

STU: Thank you.

PAT: It's ridiculous. All of the way to 1?

GLENN: Don't you see what we're doing? Now, we're arguing about this which is nonsense. It doesn't matter how many there are. It doesn't matter. There's enough. More than 1.1 million, that's enough. That's enough. 1.1 million is enough to wipe us off the face of the earth. So, it doesn't matter what the number is and it does matter on how many people will stand up against it and vocally say no, enough is enough. That's the number that we should be talking about.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: In the meantime, we can't even as a government -- we can't even say that there is terror. We have now the Department of Homeland Security going into Wal-Mart with a video and Wal-Mart's statement is that they are going to, they are the first of many retailers that are partnering with the Department of Homeland Security. Now I have no problem if you want to say, Hey, if you see something, say something, but this is an administration that doesn't even think that terrorism is real. And why -- why is Wal-Mart partnering with the Department of Homeland Security? Wal-Mart says, well, we're trying to keep our cities safe. I understand that and I salute them for that and if you see something, say something. But what does that have to do something with if you see something in the store? What do you mean? Shoplifting? Shoplifting is -- that's a Department of Homeland Security thing? What does that mean? That's not a Federal crime. I'm sorry, but it just -- something is wrong here. Now, maybe Wal-Mart is just -- and I'm sure this is what it is, I mean, I met the people at Wal-Mart. I like the people at Wal-Mart, but I look at this Wal-Mart story and I think it is just this, most likely: Department of Homeland Security calls up and says, do you know what? Let me do it look the Department of Homeland Security does it right now, do you know what would be really nice, huh? You play a little video at the checkout, huh? I'm just saying it would be a good thing. That's all I'm saying. All I'm saying is you want to do that, huh? You want to do that now, Wal-Mart, or are you going to do that later? We can do this two ways. I've got a cannoli. We'll throw it in the car. Do you know what I'm saying? Take you for a little spin. Personally I think that was -- that's what happened and they just said, Hey, we've got a little video. Why don't you put it on the cash registers, huh? And Wal-Mart was, like, you know, that's fine. We'll just put that on the -- because it's no big deal. That's right. It's no big deal. I just think that it is opening the door to the Department of Homeland Security and I think it's a little creepy myself, 1984ish. I think it's a little creepy, but I don't necessarily think there's anything nefarious there, but I was a little disturbed -- that's just one of the first stories, do you know what I'm saying? Some of the first retailers that are going to be helping out Department of Homeland Security. Yeah. I'm a little uncomfortable with that. Leave the guns. Take the cannoli.

PAT: I'm a little uncomfortable with the accent.

STU: Yeah. I was going to say the same thing. I couldn't think of an appropriate word to describe what it was.

PAT: I guess it was an attempt at an accent, but --

STU: No.

PAT: No. Maybe Swedish?

STU: It could have been Swedish.

PAT: I'm not sure.

GLENN: Listen to what I'm saying. That's all I'm saying. Ya?

PAT: Early construction workers, 18th century? I don't know. I don't know.

STU: Not a complete loss.

GLENN: You take the holiday stolen.

PAT: It continues. It continues.

(Crosstalk.)

STU: It's called blow back. It's called blow back.

GLENN: That's what it is. That's what it is.

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.