Glenn Beck: Media loving Obama

GLENN: I was reading about some stories on it last night and trying to gauge reaction. I know that Obama's wife was crying all the way through it, they say. I don't know why she was crying all the way through. Maybe she was proud for the first time to be an American. I'm not sure. But no -- yeah, you are right, this would be the second time she would be proud to be an American, when her husband was basically saying, "Oh, I don't agree with him, but it's the reality. It's the way things are. It's the way people feel." You know what? Excuse me? Maybe the way people -- maybe the reason why people feel that way is because they're sitting in churches listening to hate mongers. Is there anybody that could get away with this kind of talk? Would we ever have tolerated this kind of talk on the Don Imus show? Remember what Don did was make a racist comment in comedy. He was doing a comedy show and you had politicians and everybody else boycotting him, wanting him fired. In fact, I believe we have some audio of Barack Obama and his stance on Don Imus. Roll it, Dan.

VOICE: I wanted to again ask you about Don Imus. You have condemned his remarks about the women's basketball team at Rutgers. Let me ask you pointedly, do you think he should be fired?

SENATOR OBAMA: I don't think MSNBC should be carrying the kinds of hateful remarks that Imus uttered the other day and, you know, he has a track record of making those kinds of remarks. Look, I've got two daughters who are African-American, gorgeous, tall, and I hope at some point are interested enough until sports that they get athletic scholarships. Roadways voice so he should be off the air, off of MSNBC and off of CBS, off the air completely in your judgment?

SENATOR OBAMA: Ultimately you guys are going to have to make that view. He would not be for me.

VOICE: Finally, you've been on the program to promote your books. Will you or would you be a guest on his show in the future?

SENATOR OBAMA: No, I would not. I was on there once actually after the Democratic National Convention. I spoke about my book briefly. That's been my only experience on the show, and he was fine when I was on that show, but I don't want to be an enabler or be encouraging in any way of the kind of programming that results in the offensive statements that were made just a few days.

GLENN: He doesn't want to be an enabler. He doesn't want to be involved with Don Imus. He's only been on Don Imus' show once and he was fine but once Don Imus said that, it's so racist, he doesn't want to enable that kind of bigotry and hate speech. And yet he'll sit in a pew for 20 years listening to a guy who says the United States government and the white man invented AIDS and in a genocidal act took the AIDS virus and intentionally injected it into African-Americans. Well, what -- are you kidding me? That's not hate speech, that's not bigoted, that's not racist? He said himself in his speech that Reverend Wright has dramatically distorted views of America. He believes that white racism is endemic, that he recognizes that Jeremiah Wright, the guy he's been enabling for 20 years, believes that all white men are racist, yet he rejects that. He won't enable Don Imus but he will enable a guy who his theology on his own website, his theology, he has been -- and this is coming from the Wall Street Journal. So, you know, it's not some crazy right wing, you know, talk radio website. This is the Wall Street Journal. "Oh, but they're owned by Fox." Well, I can discredit them then, I guess.

Here's the thing. His comments are based in ideology, the profoundly distorted view is not something that is just a passing motion, that just happened. In his own talking points on his congregation website, he describes his view as -- quoting -- systemized black liberation theology. Now, the reverend that Barack has enabled for 20 years credits James Cohn of New York union's theological seminary with having undertaken this systemization. Here as Cohn's description of what this theology is. You got it? So we're one person removed from Reverend Wright. He says his theology is based on this, based on this guy and his work and here's what this guy says his work is all about. Quote: Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill all gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Now, let me ask you a question, America. If the media wasn't what the media is in America, can you imagine anyone, any candidate besides Barack Obama having an opportunity to give a second speech today? His career would be over. Can you imagine if Mitt Romney's theology was anything, even just the first line, if his theology was like that? The media would be all over this. The media that hates religion, that thinks religion is nothing but evil and leads to nothing but destruction, is nothing but mind control, is nothing but something for the weak minded, that sews hatred, that sews bigotry and yet somehow or another the same media is missing this black liberation theology and they're giving a relative pass to Jeremiah Wright.

If you've read the newspapers, and I've read four of them this morning, they all somewhere will have something on, well, this is just going to be fodder now for conservative talk radio. This is going to be fodder for conservative talk radio? Talk radio is the only people that care about this kind of idea? Now, Barack Obama I think takes it a step further. He takes this theology and says, I don't agree with this theology but I want you to know that a lot of people do. That this is the black experience that people don't understand. I'd like the African-Americans that are listening to me now please to call me and tell me that this is the black experience because I don't buy that. I don't buy that for a second. I believe in many people's minds this is the black experience because no one has stopped preaching this.

You know, when slaves, when America had slaves I could see it. I could see it. When Jim Crow was happening, when lynchings were happening, I could see it much, much less but I could still see it. But I could only see it in the fringes. I can see discontent but there's not enough people out there preaching "Look at the progress that we've made, look at the progress." Instead the white man is at fault. In Barack Obama's own language last night it was not -- or yesterday, it was not just the white man because the white man is a victim as well. It's not just the white man that's doing it. It's the rich white man. It's the rich European white man because the rich white European has also hurt the poor white man. So you can band everybody together as long as your common enemy is the rich white man. "Well, let's get our pitchforks and torches and let's -- what do you say? We all head to Microsoft and kill Bill Gates today because clearly he's the problem. He's the one that's been keeping us down. Let's head to Omaha afterwards. Let's get that Warren Buffett."

It is a dangerous philosophy. It is a dangerous theology. Listen to the theology. The theology is the theology of an extremist that says God has to be with us. God is with us if we kill our enemy, which is the white man, kill him, all means necessary. This theology sounds familiar except this theology is based in Jesus Christ, not Mohammed. There's no difference. Hate is hate. Extremism is extremism. Religious distortion is religious distortion. You don't have to be a Muslim to be a killer. You don't have to be a Muslim extremist to go blow yourself up. You can be a Christian and a killer. You can be an atheist and a killer. You can be a Christian extremist and preach hatred, and that's what this theology is. This theology is hatred.

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.