Glenn Beck: Obama's spiritual woes continue




ALSO SEE


Barack Obama’s Latest Pastor Problem: Chicago's Rev. James T. Meeks


GLENN: Okay.  Breathe deep.  Go ahead, Dan.  Turn the Air Supply down a little bit and then let me roll the audio here of the latest pastor of Barack Obama.  This is, of course, not Reverend Jeremiah Wright because that guy -- I mean, no big deal.  Barack Obama didn't hear any of those things.  He was never there on the -- he's attended the church for 20 years but he was never there on those days.  Well, here's a new spiritual counselor of Barack Obama, a guy he's close to, a guy who has worked on his advisory committee, on his exploratory committee, a guy -- in fact, they seem to do a lot together because they also have received an awful lot of money from James Rezco as well, the two of them, and -- I'm sorry, allegedly.  And the other part is that this reverend, his choir has come out and, you know, sung at a rally for Barack Obama, et cetera, et cetera.  So here's the latest clip from a new spiritual advisor of Barack Obama.  Listen carefully.

VOICE:  Senator James Meeks used some tough language in the pulpit attacking the mayor and others including African-Americans who are allies.  Meeks tries to generate some new issue on the funding for public schools.  He led a March through downtown Chicago to call attention to inequalities of education.  We report on his language and his rough words.

MEEKS:  We don't have slave masters.  We've got mayors but they are still the same white people who have presided over systems where black people are not able or to be educated.

GLENN:  Stop here for a second.  Stop for a second.  You hear this?  We don't have slave masters.  We have mayors.  But it's a typical white person.  Wow, where have I heard that before?  Play that again, will you, Dan?  This guy, I have to tell you, he's not speaking like a conservative but he's sure speaking conservative values when it comes to they're looking over a system that won't allow people to get educated or anything else except his solution is replace the white person with a black person.  Conservatives believe, dismantle the system that is oppressing people because I got news for you.  I believe our government is way too big, it's way too oppressive but I can't relate to oppression because I'm white and I'm typically white.  So I can't understand.  The answer is not to replace a white with a black but to dismantle the system.  Because you're right.  It is too powerful but not for blacks.  For everybody.  I digress.

MEEKS:  We don't have slave masters.  We got mayors.  But they're still the same white people who have presided over systems where black people are not able or to be educated.

REPORTER:  That was only one part of the tough talk state senator James Meeks delivered on Sunday's sermon at the south side church where he is pastor.  It was broadcast twice on WJYS, channel 62.  Today he stood by every word of it.

VOICE:  Is it fair of a mayor to compare him and the governor to slave masters?

MEEKS:  They do the same thing.  They preside --

GLENN:  Stop, stop.  They do the same thing.  See, this is the problem.  And this is the problem that America better wake up to.  This is insanity talk.  You know what, let me tell you something.  If you actually did have slavery in your past, I think your slave ancestors would come and slap you across the face for saying that the mayor or the governor of a state is the same as a slave master because they're doing the same thing.  Really?  Have they been shipping people over on slave ships?  Have they been chaining people?  Don't care if they live or die.  Have they been whipping people to death?  Have they been splitting up families because they can sell your family members some place else?  Are you insane?  It is an insult to those who were actual slaves.  My gosh, have you just, have you forgotten what actual slavery was like?  If a white man would say that, everyone would scream from the highest mountaintop.  How dare you compare slavery to this.  You've got to be kidding me.  Anyway, go ahead.

MEEKS:  They do the same thing.  They preside over systems where they have the control of the lives of African-American and Hispanic people.

REPORTER:  While Meeks is a potential challenger --

GLENN:  Stop, stop.  Again, dismantle the system!  Make government stronger.  I know, nobody likes to quote the founding fathers, but read their words.  The bigger the government gets, the more powerful the government becomes, the more the government takes from one and gives to another, the more it enslaves the people.  Hello.  Dismantle the size of government.

REPORTER:  While Meeks is a potential challenger to Daley in this winter city election, he is hoping others will run against members of the African-American city council who have been close, paging them with the N word, a racial slur that CBS news chooses to cover with a --

GLENN:  Stop.  Stop just a second.  CBS news in Chicago covers it.  My question is why.  Because it's been beat into our heads that it's offensive.  I happen to believe it is offensive.  So CBS news chooses to not run it, but he, a reverend, a spiritual -- it's not advisor.  What is he called?  A spiritual counsel of Barack Obama, someone who's on his exploratory committee, he decides to use the N word, and listen to this.

MEEKS:  You got some preachers at a house [BLEEP], you got some elected officials that are house [BLEEP] and rather than them trying to break this up, they are going to fight you to protect that white man.

REPORTER:  So why do you use that word?

MEEKS:  The word [BLEEP] is not in the African-American community a bad word.

GLENN:  Stop just a second.  It's not a bad word, unless a white man uses it.  It's not a bad word.  It's weird.  I've got to go back and listen to those speeches about the two Americas and how wrong that is.

So I can't use the N word because I'm a white man but it's not offensive in the African-American community.  Just remember that.  It's not offensive in the African-American community.  Go ahead.

MEEKS:  A bad word.  It's a term of endearment and --

GLENN:  Stop, stop, it's a term of endearment.  Stu, you keeping track?  It's not offensive.  In fact, it's a term of endearment in the African-American community.

MEEKS:  It's a term of endearment and I don't see it as derogatory or offensive.

GLENN:  Stop.  It's not derogatory and it's not offensive.  So then was he praising the mayor?  Was he just praising the mayor?  Because he called him a house N word.  So is that praise?  I thought he was campaigning against him.  Why would he say we've got some -- you know, that's like saying, hey, it's a term of endearment.  "Hey, we've got some good buddies."  We've got some -- we've got some good, good friends.  We've got some old chums in the mayor's office.  Oh.  See, now that you know it's not a derogatory term, it's not an offensive term.  Well, now you know.  Oh.  He must have strangely been campaigning for the -- unless you're saying that sometimes words can mean some things and be okay and other times you can use that word and it could be really bad.  But you wouldn't be saying something like that, would you?  That's weird.  This is a guy who's worked on the exploratory committee for Barack Obama this is a guy who has frequently campaigned.  While Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he campaigned at this church while Meeks appeared on television ads supporting Barack Obama.  In television ads this guy has used.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?