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.

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?