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

Correcting the Healthcare Record on Hillary Clinton

February 03, 2016
Staff

WRITER

The Context

In the midst of sorting out votes during the Iowa Caucus, Hillary Clinton declared herself a "progressive that gets things done." She also stated her position on healthcare, saying “I know that we can finish the job of universal health care coverage for every single man, woman and child.” As with most statements made by a Clinton, the particular choice of words matter. Glenn stated Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program that Hillary was in favor of a single-payer healthcare system, but that wasn't exactly what she said. Given her penchant for wordsmithing, he wanted to set the record straight.

Word Games

What did Hillary actually say about healthcare? Is she for a single-payer system? It all depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

“So correction, if you will, and I think it's kind of a word game that we're playing. I said earlier today that in Hillary Clinton's acceptance --- or her Iowa speech --- she said that she was going for single-payer health care,” Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "What she said was she was going for universal health care for every single payer.”

Hillary Clinton's speech from Iowa in which she addresses healthcare around mark 4:00:

Reading Between the Lines

The Clintons, known for parsing words when facing scrutiny, artfully craft statements to confuse and allow for wiggle room. (Were those emails "marked" classified, Hillary?) She's trying to make herself appear less radical than Bernie Sanders by using the phrase "universal healthcare" rather than "single-payer," but it's all the same thing, really.

“Yeah, the difference is, in a single-payer, a true single-payer system, Glenn Beck, evil rich person gets his insurance from the government,” Co-host Stu Burguiere said. "The only reason there's any bother to even make this distinction here is because Sanders is trying to go to Hillary's left by saying single-payer, specifically. And she's trying to go to the sensible side and just say, 'No, we'll just pay for 90 percent of people. Not 100 percent. That's crazy.'"

Muddying the Waters

Does she mean she wants the government to pay for everyone’s healthcare or does she mean the feds should oversee a ‘privately run’ system? Her supporters have just enough room to defend her and just enough doubt to support whichever way she goes. Her masterfully crafted statements do plenty to muddy the waters.

Common Sense Bottom Line

The difference between "universal healthcare" and "single-payer" is negligible. Everyone knows what she means is a government-controlled system of healthcare. Hillary keeps saying she's an early 20th century progressives. That's code for socialist. And socialists want the government to control your healthcare.

Listen to the full segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: So correction, if you will, and I think it's kind of a word game that we're playing. I said earlier today that in Hillary Clinton's acceptance -- or, her Iowa speech, she said that she was going for single-payer health care. What she said was she was going for universal health care for every single-payer.

STU: Yes. Every single man, woman, and child.

PAT: That's amazing. And it's the same thing. Virtually the same thing. It's very close to the same thing.

STU: Yeah, the difference is, in a single-payer, a true single-payer system, Glenn Beck, evil rich person gets his government -- his insurance from the government.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Hillary's idea, Glenn Beck will pay for his own insurance and for everyone else's as he gives his money to the government. So someone who can't afford it will get it from the government, where in a true single-payer, everyone gets it from the government. The bottom line is we pay for everyone who needs it in both instances.

JEFFY: Right. Plus, this is Hillary being allowed to move further left because of Bernie and say it out loud.

PAT: Didn't Obama say I'm for single-payer universal health care, and he said it in the same sentence? It seems like --

OBAMA: A single-player health care plan, a universal health care plan.

PAT: I thought he did.

GLENN: Yes. That's the same thing.

PAT: It's interchangeable. It's essentially the same thing.

STU: A lot of times, the terms are very interchangeable. The only reason there's any bother to even make this distinction here is because Sanders is trying to go to Hillary's left by saying single-payer specifically.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And she's trying to go to the sensible side and just saying, "No, we'll just pay for 90 percent of people. Not 100 percent. That's crazy." So, you know, she's trying to make the distinction that my idea is pragmatic and can get done, where Sanders, while it's a great idea, we'll never get there. And that's how Barack Obama sold Obamacare too.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: He said in that clip he said back in the day, I want to get a single-payer program. When he got in front of the country, he said, well, single-payer is too far. Maybe if I started a country, I'd go to single-payer. But we're not there. We need to work within our system to expand coverage and make things affordable.

I mean, in reality, they all want the same thing, they're just arguing how far they can get --

GLENN: What we said was going to happen, we said that they would -- they would start with this Barack Obamacare. Then they would collapse the medical system. Everything would become way too expensive. Then they would say they needed to move to single-payer because this wasn't working and they would expand. I believe we got to get the credit for being right on that one.

PAT: Again, we were right on every point of that Obamacare thing.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: And that was one of the many things we were right about.

GLENN: Right. I mean, they called us crazy. Conspiracy theorists. Haters. Everything else. Because we said that's what was going on.

PAT: Exactly what they're going for though.

GLENN: Exactly.

PAT: Exactly. And it's interesting to watch the Democrats because the sensible position Hillary is taking is like the difference between, well, I'm not Marxist, I'm like Vladimir Lenin. I'm not Karl Marx. I'm just Lenin. I'm just carrying out his plan. That's all I'm doing.

That's the difference between Sanders and Clinton. Is the same difference as between Marx and Lenin. One of them is -- one of them is the idea person, the other is just carrying out the ideas. Big deal.

GLENN: She keeps saying I'm an early 20th century progressives. They were all socialist.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That said we don't want a revolution here. We just want to take it one step at a time. So when Bernie Sanders says, "You want something revolutionary?" She says no.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters as Former U.S. president Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton look on during her caucus night event in the Olmsted Center at Drake University on February 1, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa. Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Martin O'Malley are competing in the Iowa Democratic caucus. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Stand with Voddie Baucham’s family in this time of loss

In the quiet aftermath of a profound loss, the Christian community mourns the unexpected passing of Dr. Voddie Baucham, a towering figure in evangelical circles. Known for his defense of biblical truth, Baucham, a pastor, author, and theologian, left a legacy on family, faith, and opposing "woke" ideologies in the church. His book Fault Lines challenged believers to prioritize Scripture over cultural trends. Glenn had Voddie on the show several times, where they discussed progressive influences in Christianity, debunked myths of “Christian nationalism,” and urged hope amid hostility.

The shock of Baucham's death has deeply affected his family. Grieving, they remain hopeful in Christ, with his wife, Bridget, now facing the task of resettling in the US without him. Their planned move from Lusaka, Zambia, was disrupted when their home sale fell through last December, resulting in temporary Airbnb accommodations, but they have since secured a new home in Cape Coral that requires renovations. To ensure Voddie's family is taken care of, a fundraiser is being held to raise $2 million, which will be invested for ongoing support, allowing Bridget to focus on her family.

We invite readers to contribute prayerfully. If you feel called to support the Bauchams in this time of need, you can click here to donate.

We grieve and pray with hope for the Bauchams.

May Voddie's example inspire us.

From isolation to connection: Overcoming loneliness

Loneliness isn’t just being alone — it’s feeling unseen, unheard, and unimportant, even amid crowds and constant digital chatter.

Loneliness has become an epidemic in America. Millions of people, even when surrounded by others, feel invisible. In tragic irony, we live in an age of unparalleled connectivity, yet too many sit in silence, unseen and unheard.

I’ve been experiencing this firsthand. My children have grown up and moved out. The house that once overflowed with life now echoes with quiet. Moments that once held laughter now hold silence. And in that silence, the mind can play cruel games. It whispers, “You’re forgotten. Your story doesn’t matter.”

We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

It’s a lie.

I’ve seen it in others. I remember sitting at Rockefeller Center one winter, watching a woman lace up her ice skates. Her clothing was worn, her bag battered. Yet on the ice, she transformed — elegant, alive, radiant.

Minutes later, she returned to her shoes, merged into the crowd, unnoticed. I’ve thought of her often. She was not alone in her experience. Millions of Americans live unseen, performing acts of quiet heroism every day.

Shared pain makes us human

Loneliness convinces us to retreat, to stay silent, to stop reaching out to others. But connection is essential. Even small gestures — a word of encouragement, a listening ear, a shared meal — are radical acts against isolation.

I’ve learned this personally. Years ago, a caller called me “Mr. Perfect.” I could have deflected, but I chose honesty. I spoke of my alcoholism, my failed marriage, my brokenness. I expected judgment. Instead, I found resonance. People whispered back, “I’m going through the same thing. Thank you for saying it.”

Our pain is universal. Everyone struggles with self-doubt and fear. Everyone feels, at times, like a fraud. We are unique in our gifts, but not in our humanity. Recognizing this shared struggle is how we overcome loneliness.

We were made for connection. We were built for community — for conversation, for touch, for shared purpose. Every time we reach out, every act of courage and compassion punches a hole in the wall of isolation.

You’re not alone

If you’re feeling alone, know this: You are not invisible. You are seen. You matter. And if you’re not struggling, someone you know is. It’s your responsibility to reach out.

Loneliness is not proof of brokenness. It is proof of humanity. It is a call to engage, to bear witness, to connect. The world is different because of the people who choose to act. It is brighter when we refuse to be isolated.

We cannot let silence win. We cannot allow loneliness to dictate our lives. Speak. Reach out. Connect. Share your gifts. By doing so, we remind one another: We are all alike, and yet each of us matters profoundly.

In this moment, in this country, in this world, what we do matters. Loneliness is real, but so is hope. And hope begins with connection.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.


Russell Vought’s secret plan to finally shrink Washington

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s OMB chief built the plan for this moment: Starve pet programs, force reauthorization, and actually shrink Washington.

The government is shut down again, and the usual panic is back. I even had someone call my house this week to ask if it was safe to fly today. The person was half-joking, half-serious, wondering if planes would “fall out of the sky.”

For the record, the sky isn’t falling — at least not literally. But the chaos in Washington does feel like it. Once again, we’re watching the same old script: a shutdown engineered not by fiscal restraint but by political brinkmanship. And this time, the Democrats are driving the bus.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills.

Democrats, among other things, are demanding that health care be extended to illegal immigrants. Democratic leadership caved to its radical base, which would rather shut down the government for such left-wing campaign points than compromise. Republicans — shockingly — said no. They refused to rubber-stamp more spending for illegal immigration. For once, they stood their ground.

But if you’ve watched Washington long enough, you know how this story usually ends: a shutdown followed by a deal that spends even more money than before — a continuing resolution kicking the can down the road. Everyone pretends to “win,” but taxpayers always lose.

The Vought effect

This time might be different. Republicans actually hold some cards. The public may blame Democrats — not the media, but the people who feel this in their wallets. Americans don’t like shutdowns, but they like runaway spending and chaos even less.

That’s why you’re hearing so much about Russell Vought, the director of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Donald Trump’s quiet architect of a strategy to use moments like this to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Vought spent four years building a plan for exactly this scenario: firing nonessential workers and forcing reauthorization of pet programs. Trump talks about draining the swamp. Vought draws up the blueprints.

The Democrats and media are threatened by Vought because he is patient, calculated, and understands how to leverage the moment to reverse decades of government bloat. If programs aren’t mandated, cut them. Make Congress fight to bring them back. That’s how you actually drain the swamp.

Predictable meltdowns

Predictably, Democrats are melting down. They’ve shifted their arguments so many times it’s dizzying. Last time, they claimed a shutdown would lead to mass firings. Now, they insist Republicans are firing everyone anyway. It’s the same playbook: Move the goalposts, reframe the narrative, accuse your opponents of cruelty.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the infamous "You lie!” moment in 2009? President Barack Obama promised during his State of the Union that Obamacare wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” and was condemned for breaching decorum.

Several years later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform openly promised health care for illegal immigrants. What was once called a “lie” became official policy. And today, Democrats are shutting down the government because they can’t get even more of it.

This is progressivism in action: Deny it, inch toward it, then demand it as a moral imperative. Anyone who resists becomes the villain.

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Stand firm

This shutdown isn’t just about spending. It’s about whether we’ll keep letting progressives rewrite the rules one crisis at a time. Trump’s plan — to cut what isn’t mandated, force programs into reauthorization, and fight the battle in the courts — is the first real counterpunch to decades of this manipulation.

It’s time to stop pretending. This isn’t about compassion. It’s about control. Progressives know once they normalize government benefits for illegal immigrants, they never roll back. They know Americans forget how it started.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills. If we don’t take it, we’ll be right back here again, only deeper in debt, with fewer freedoms left to defend.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Britain says “no work without ID”—a chilling preview for America

OLI SCARFF / Contributor | Getty Images

From banking to health care, digital IDs touch every aspect of citizens’ lives, giving the government unprecedented control over everyday actions.

On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood at the podium at the Global Progressive Action Conference in London and made an announcement that should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves liberty. By the end of this Parliament, he promised, every worker in the U.K. will be required to hold a “free-of-charge” digital ID. Without it, Britons will not be able to work.

No digital ID, no job.

The government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Starmer framed this as a commonsense response to poverty, climate change, and illegal immigration. He claimed Britain cannot solve these problems without “looking upstream” and tackling root causes. But behind the rhetoric lies a policy that shifts power away from individuals and places it squarely in the hands of government.

Solving the problem they created

This is progressivism in action. Leaders open their borders, invite in mass illegal immigration, and refuse to enforce their own laws. Then, when public frustration boils over, they unveil a prepackaged “solution” — in this case, digital identity — that entrenches government control.

Britain isn’t the first to embrace this system. Switzerland recently approved a digital ID system. Australia already has one. The World Economic Forum has openly pitched digital IDs as the key to accessing everything from health care to bank accounts to travel. And once the infrastructure is in place, digital currency will follow soon after, giving governments the power to track every purchase, approve or block transactions, and dictate where and how you spend your money.

All of your data — your medical history, insurance, banking, food purchases, travel, social media engagement, tax information — would be funneled into a centralized database under government oversight.

The fiction of enforcement

Starmer says this is about cracking down on illegal work. The BBC even pressed him on the point, asking why a mandatory digital ID would stop human traffickers and rogue employers who already ignore national insurance cards. He had no answer.

Bad actors will still break the law. Bosses who pay sweatshop wages under the table will not suddenly check digital IDs. Criminals will not line up to comply. This isn’t about stopping illegal immigration. If it were, the U.K. would simply enforce existing laws, close the loopholes, and deport those working illegally.

Instead, the government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Control masked as compassion

This is part of an old playbook. Politicians claim their hands are tied and promise that only sweeping new powers will solve the crisis. They selectively enforce laws to maintain the problem, then use the problem to justify expanding control.

If Britain truly wanted to curb illegal immigration, it could. It is an island. The Channel Tunnel has clear entry points. Enforcement is not impossible. But a digital ID allows for something far more valuable to bureaucrats than border security: total oversight of their own citizens.

The American warning

Think digital ID can’t happen here? Think again. The same arguments are already echoing in Washington, D.C. Illegal immigration is out of control. Progressives know voters are angry. When the digital ID pitch arrives, it will be wrapped in patriotic language about fairness, security, and compassion.

But the goal isn’t compassion. It’s control of your movement, your money, your speech, your future.

We don’t need digital IDs to enforce immigration law. We need leaders with the courage to enforce existing law. Until then, digital ID schemes will keep spreading, sold as a cure for the very problems they helped create.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.