Don't mess with Glenn

GLENN: Now, here's another thing that happened over the weekend. I don't know what you did over the weekend but I spent, well, a good portion of Friday night locked in the basement of my fallout shelter -- no, my fallout shelter has a basement as well. Just in case the fallout shelter isn't enough, I have a saferoom in the fallout shelter. But we heard noises outside and may I just say that my house is really not the one to, you know, get -- you know, come in and just mess with because I turn into Second Amendment man at my house and it was like 1:00 in the morning and we heard voices and my wife says, do you hear voices? And, "Yes. " And the dog is already on it and I mean, I come down with the -- what are those called? Bandoliers? I come down the stairs, I swear to you, I looked like Rambo. I come down the stairs with my dog and, you know, I had two pistols because I was -- I had two pistols, I had my shotgun. Nobody's coming into my house. Nobody is messing with my family. And so the dog and I, we search the whole house and all the closets and everything else and then they -- then we heard voices again. About a half hour later we hear voices again. So I have the whole house wired for sound. So I can hear it down in the basement of the fallout shelter. And we hear voices again and so I call the police. They are on their way over. I mean, it was like, it was the fastest thing ever. All of a sudden they are almost here. They are like 45 seconds away and they call and they're like, are you armed? And I'm like, yes, I am. Oh, yes, I am.

They got here, and I've never had anybody call to find out if you were armed before. Stu, have you ever heard anybody having 911 call back and say, are you armed?

STU: Did your name come up with the caller ID? That's probably why they asked you.

GLENN: "Oh, it's Beck. Are you in your fallout shelter of your basement right now, Mr. Beck? Do you have enough food storage?"

STU: How many machine guns are you currently carrying?

GLENN: How many machine guns do you have in your house? I just have to know.

STU: What would you say as a psychotic killer from 1 to 10?

GLENN: Are you saying that's what the police should have asked?

STU: What the police should have asked.

GLENN: Probably a very high number at that point.

STU: You earned -- I would say that if I'm driving down your road and I'm in my car having a conversation in the middle of the night and we pass your house, I stop talking with my wife as we pass your -- just with the off chance that if you hear me, there could just be bullets flying out of the house.

GLENN: Well, I mean, here's the thing that my wife and I were talking about. The world has changed so much now that, you know, I mean, people used to, you know, throw eggs at houses and TP houses and everything else. Now you could get yourself killed. You could get yourself killed.

I was talking to a relative over the weekend and I said it was probably just teenagers and yada, yada, yada, and you just don't do that. You just don't mess with people in the middle of the night. You don't know whose house you are coming up to.

STU: Yeah, we used to do the thing where you go around the neighborhood and you would ring doorbells and run away, that stupid thing. Like now it is -- just realize how stupid of an idea that was looking back at it because, you know, you scare someone in the wrong way, especially in this day and age, you don't know what's going to happen. You don't know if there's going to be a baseball bat or a butcher's knife or a shotgun coming through the window.

GLENN: You don't. You have no idea. So anyway, this relative said that they actually -- I mean, they are a little more aggressive than I. They actually ran out in the backyard and tackled somebody that was trying to steal a neighbor's car and they had guns but they chose not to use it. They just tackled them because they saw that he was a smaller guy and he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and they watched him as he was trying to steal the car. They called police, blah, blah, blah. He saw the car was coming. He ran. He ran in the back. My relative went out and tackled him, took him down, and it was a kid that they knew. And they are like, what are you doing? And they're like, oh, we were -- you know, I was going to move, you know, Billy's car a block away.

So when he was trying to break in the car as a joke to move it. My relative said, "Are you crazy? You could have gotten killed. You just don't do this stuff."

STU: That's crazy, especially in this day and age. People are not -- I don't know. Maybe I'm just getting older and more paranoid of the stuff like that happening but you can't be stupid like that anymore. There's no room for it.

GLENN: Yeah, there is. I mean, there's room for it for your relatives because what will happen then is if you were killed, then the relatives sue the person who shot you for being stupid. So there is room for it.

STU: It's a very good point. It's almost an industry at this point.

GLENN: It is. It's a cottage industry. I'm thinking about just breeding a bunch of stupid kids that I can get rich off of. You know what I mean? "Hey, why don't you go play a prank over there in front of that house. They look well armed." I mean, and then I see this. I love this. I see this. This is an editorial in today's USA Today. This isn't 1787. The opposing view editorial by Gun Owners of America and its opposing view Second Amendment debate on Wednesday. It's utterly laughable. Although the review is unduly restrictive, attorneys say people need to keep and bear arms in order to prevent the government from becoming tyrannical is preposterous. This isn't 1787. It's 2008. We have gotten over our fear that our government is going to follow that of King George III.

No, we haven't. It's gotten worse. Is anybody -- I mean, is anybody -- they are not afraid? Really? That's the consensus out there? That the government isn't grabbing up too much power, that the government -- I mean, this is coming from the left, not necessarily from the right. Now it's coming from the right as well. But everybody was -- everybody was screaming, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute, Homeland Security, the PATRIOT Act, what, are you crazy? You're going to let them have all of that power? That's too much power, that's intrusive, that's infringement of our rights."

The left has been screaming that the government is getting out of control. Now the right is screaming that the government is out of control. That's one thing America agrees on! Our government is out of control, and what does this pinhead want to do? Take away guns. Take away the guns because, quote, "Even if the military were to turn against us, the idea of a bunch of private citizens subduing the armed forces is too comical for words." Oh. Well, then we just give up. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. .

I mean, what, are you insane? Every time a government takes away the guns, every time they take away the guns, crime gets worse, gun crime, violent crime gets worse and it usually ends up, I don't know, with the death of millions. I mean, protect the homeland, man, protect the home front. Protect your own family. And also, have the right to protect yourself against the government. I mean, that's last on a long list of things, for the love of Pete. But you know what? When the government -- if the government would have said to me, if the police would have called and said, "Are you armed right now?" "Uh-huh." "Well, you know you are not supposed to have that gun. We're supposed to confiscate all those guns." "Well, then I regret calling you and you probably shouldn't come onto my property as well." I mean, come on. What, you're going to take on the police force? No. No, I'm not going to take on the police force because I think most people in the police force agree with me, that the arm -- that citizens, responsible citizens armed is a good thing. It's the criminals that are a bad thing. I haven't met the cop that says, oh, jeez, if we could just get all of the guns out of the hands of the good guys. I don't know the cop. Oh, I'm sorry. Adam just informed me, "You're right, the chief of the Philadelphia police force," which, no, that will fix it. That will fix Philadelphia, yeah, get the guns out of the hands of the good guys. Yeah, that will be -- isn't this the same chief of police that was saying, "Hey, do we have any volunteers that want to help me out? Because we're out of ideas." He actually asked for volunteers, a citizen force which, if I may just say, it's not 1787, is it? Do you know why the militia clause is in the Bill of Rights? Do you know why it's in the Second Amendment about the militia? Do you know what a well regulated militia is? We look at that and say, "Oh, well, that's just the state, that's like the National Guard." No, it's not. Ben Franklin was the one who started the first militia. And the reason why he started it is because Pennsylvania said, oh, we can't afford troops. Troops, guns? Gunpowder? What? And Ben Franklin was like, hello, the Government's out of control. You know, we have nobody protecting the homeland here and the British are going to come in and they're going to stomp on our heads; we probably need to have, you know, I don't know, some troops. Oh, that's crazy talk, we can't have any troops. That's too expensive.

So what did he do? He went door to door. He was a popular guy. He's the guy that got the first public hospital built. How did he get the first public hospital built? With his influence. He said, you know what? He said, you know what? Hey, rich people, why don't you kick in some money; let's build a hospital. He's also the guy that started the militias because while he cared about the poor, he also cared about the poor. And when the British -- you know, when he knew things were coming, he said -- and then he went to the government and said, "Hey, guys, Pennsylvania, let's, what do you say, we have some troops." Oh, no, that's crazy. Okay, he went door to door. He started a campaign. "You know what, citizens, who's with me? Who's with me?" He went door to door and he said, "Grab the gun that's over your fireplace and come with me." That's what a militia is. A militia was your neighbor, somebody who says, you know what, I got my hunting rifle; nobody's going to mess with me; this is my town, this is my property. That's what the militia was. That was the original intent. It is because he couldn't get the government to do anything. They couldn't get the government to organize anything. So don't even start with me. And whatever you do, don't TP the trees in my house. I'm just sayin'. Not a good idea. Not a good idea.

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?