Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Media Bias? Glenn compares Ann Romney's and Michelle Obama's interviews on "The View"

October 19, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Ann Romney entered the hostile territory of The View yesterday and was greeted by

a confrontational Whoopi Goldberg. Unlike Michelle Obama, Ann was met by questions on abortion and Mormonism.

"I'm watching the highlights of The View and I thought to myself, this is crazy," Glenn said of Whoopi's comments on the faith.

Here is the exchange between Goldberg and the potential First Lady:

Whoopi:  As First Lady if you get the job, it's going to entail a lot of things, and one of those things is going to be talking to the mothers whose children are coming home in bags, you know, from wars.  Now, I know ‑‑ I believe that your religion doesn't allow you to go fight? 

 

Ann:  No, that's not correct. 

 

Whoopi:  Okay.  So ‑‑

 

Ann:  We have many, many members of our faith that are serving in armed services. 

 

Whoopi:  Okay.  Well, I say that because when I read about your husband, what I had read, and maybe you can correct this, is that the reason that he didn't serve in Vietnam was because it was against the religion.  That's what we ‑‑ that's what I read. 

 

Ann:  No, that's not ‑‑ that's not correct. 

Clearly The View co-host didn't bother doing any research prior to her interview with Ann Romney. But even if you try to give her the benefit of the doubt and think, 'maybe she was just trying to be fair and balanced,' if you look back at previous segments The View has done with the current First Lady, Michelle Obama, that is obviously not the case.

And that's exactly what Glenn and Pat did this morning on radio.

Last Spring, Michelle Obama made a solo stop on The View, so Glenn and Pat decided to pull the first ten questions/follow-up statements, from each interview: Ann Romney's and Michelle Obama's.

"Let's see if we can detect any discernible difference in the way the two ladies are treated here," Glenn said. "Because that should, should, speak volumes."

"I mean, there's no better example than comparing apples to apples," Pat responded. "You have two, one is a First Lady, the other is a potential First Lady, and they've both been on the exact same show. And so how are they each treated?"

"Right," Glenn answered, "so let's look at the questions — just, the questions, not the answers.  Let's look at the questions of the ladies on The View."

They started with the First Lady's interview:

1. Barbara Walter's asks, "In an interview just recently, you said, and I quote, that you are sometimes unsure if you are a classic First Lady and if the things you do are okay.  So why do you feel this way and who is your idea of a classic First Lady?"

2. Referring to her not being a "typical First Lady" Walters asks, "Do you say to yourself maybe I've gone too far [from being a typical first lady]."

3. (Glenn notes that #3 is "technically not a question." but it does set up the next one.) "You're very popular, too, you know.  So it's working.  You're very popular," Joy Behar.

4. "We've talked about this before because your husband is our first black president, you are our first black First Lady.  Do you think in this campaign which is getting fairly ugly that racism is still going to be a part of it?"

5. "I wonder if you are as upset as people like me?" Joy asked next.

6. "When he's getting these attacks that people don't believe he was born here, all sorts of lies are out there.  What do you do?"

7. "What the president does for the world, but I heard that he does something special for you at night.  President Obama, your husband, he tucks you in at night."

Number 8 comes from Elizabeth Hasselbeck, so it will be tough, right? Wrong.

8. "Obviously there's a lot of political pressure, but as a family how do you talk to the girls now?  Because they're older, their perspective's probably a little different than it was four years ago.  What do you say to them about practically what could, what could not happen, moving into November?  Do you talk about it?"

9. Whoopi asks the hard-hitting question about the president, "Does he tease you?"

10. "I'll ask you, because we do want to have time to talk about the gardens and so but there have been rumors that if the president is not reelected or even in the future that you might consider running for political office?"

You can watch Michelle Obama on The View here:

So… not exactly a brutal interview. It didn't consist of a lot of controversial topics and everyone seemed very happy, nice, and excited to be involved.

Now lets take a look at Ann's:

1. "So we have been talking primarily about the women's issues and one of the things with your husband was that when he was a governor, he was pro choice and now is against abortions except in the case of rape and incest and the life of the mother.  I wonder where your views are.  Were you the same way when he was a governor?"

2. "Have you changed?"

So, Barbara Walter's started the interview of on the friendly topic of …abortion? Really? Clearly, there's no bias here.

3. "Let me ask you something to the economic point:  Do you think that access to contraception and abortion is an economic issue as I was saying in the hot topics?"

4. "So, as First Lady, if you get the job, umm, it's going to entail a lot of things, and one of those things is going to be talking to the mothers whose children are coming home in bags, you know, from wars. Now I know your religion doesn't allow you to go fight?"

Incorrect, hostile, and somewhat offensive.

5. I had read, and maybe you can correct this, is that the reason that he didn't serve in Vietnam was it because it was against the religion?

6. When you're facing these mothers whose children have not come back, how will you explain to them that your sons haven't gone when you talk about the missions that they've gone on?"

"I don't know.  They might handle it the same way Michelle Obama does whose husband didn't serve," Pat reacted.

The softball questions should be coming any moment now…

7. We had a lot of people during the convention who talked about the compassion of your family and the compassion of your husband.  We're going to get to you, Josh, because your brother said that ‑‑ I think he said he would like to take a swipe or a swap or a punch or something — swing at president.  So I want to know how you ‑‑ we all want to know how you feel.  So you think you're going to have an easy ride here?

"Okay.  So that's a threat to Josh who's sitting in the audience watching his mother.  And so she takes a swipe now at him," Pat said. "Now your brother said he was going to take a swing at the president."

8. "So Ann, we mention Josh before is the audience here, son who actually has five kids of his own, four sons, one little girl Grace, right?  Adorable.  I know that there's been some sort of, like, family intervention in terms of campaign, new stuff that's going on.  You're involved.  What are those?  And then also, do you have aspirations of a political career at all?"

9. "I know you've [Ann and Mitt] been together, what, 43 years of marriage?  That is exceptional.  And a bunch of grandkids as Barbara mentioned.  There was one point, though, I think that, did you guys almost break up?"

And last but not least, a question that should offend all stay at home mothers.

10. "This is what I want to know, and I'm so glad it's only 17, 18, and 19 that your boys are at a selfish age.  Good.  Okay, three years.  But you know, I heard, Mrs. Romney, that you don't watch any TV.  What do you do all day if you don't watch TV?"

Watch the full interview here:

So not only has the left accused Ann Romney of "never working a day in her life" because she is a stay-at-home mom, they've now accused all stay-at-home mom's of doing nothing but watch TV all day. It's safe to say the ladies of The View are a little out-of-touch.

"My gosh, these women are despicable," Glenn said. "And I say that with firsthand knowledge.  I've been on that show before.  They are despicable witches.  Ooh, did I say that out loud?  Let me say it again.  Despicable witches."

The Deep State's NEW plan to backstab Trump

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move.

In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”

This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege.

We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.

Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.

Progressives are laying out their attack plan — and they’re not even hiding it.

U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.

They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.

From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.

Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.

We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?

The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.