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

Here's the Quick Version of What's in the New Health Care Bill

September 20, 2017
Staff

WRITER

The Senate is planning to vote next week on yet another health care plan.

Why is it called the Graham-Cassidy bill?

The plan was introduced by two GOP senators: Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. It has the support of President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.

How is it different from Obamacare?

The short version is that the plan aims to ease states out of the Obamacare system and let each state decide what health care people want.

“It is a federalist version of Obamacare,” Stu Burguiere summed it up on Wednesday’s “The Glenn Beck Radio Program.”

Under the plan, states could request waivers for various Affordable Care Act provisions, including the coverage mandate and the ban on insurers charging higher premiums to people with pre-existing conditions. States that want to keep Obamacare protections would theoretically be able to do so under their own health care plan.

Will it pass?

Hard to say … but just three Republican senators need to vote against Graham-Cassidy for it to fail in the Senate. So far, the bill has 13 supporters and one definite “no,” Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Everyone else is still mulling it over.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: With everything going on in the world, there are a few things that will actually change your life that we should pay attention to. And one of them is the Graham-Cassidy bill.

This is the Republicans -- what some are saying the last shot of getting anything done on a repeal and replace Obamacare. It is -- it is starting to shape up. And it looks like it has a chance of passage. First, let's explain what it is.

STU: So let me give you a couple of headlines. Reason.com. Libertarian angle. Obamacare repeal is dead. Here come the bailouts.

Now, Vox, from the left says, I've covered the G.O.P. repeal plan since day one. Graham Cassidy is the most radical.

Don't you push me into Lindsey Graham's arms. Don't do it. So what does this thing actually do? If you want a real quick summary, it's basically a Federalist summary of Obamacare. It is not a repeal of Obamacare. It is a Federalist version of Obamacare.

GLENN: Which means a state version of Obamacare, which is exactly what we were arguing for. If Massachusetts wants to do Obamacare, they could do it. If Texas says, "No, there's a better way, let Texas do it." So that would have been okay back then. But that's not what this is now.

STU: No. Because all the money is still coming in. So the federal -- all the money from Obamacare, largely, still goes to the federal government. And then it is distributed through block grants to the states to do what they want with. So you would have a situation where your conservative state would probably do a much better job with this, if you're a conservative, or a liberal state can do all the liberal things that they want.

And what they're doing is they're taking the states that -- all the money that's going to the states now and dividing it up, what I would argue as more equitably. Like, right now, you have $100 in Obamacare money. That's split up between California and Texas.

Right now, it's, let's say, $75 go to California, $25 go to Texas. What they're going to do is split that up and make it 50/50, as a really generic way of explaining what it is.

GLENN: So far, for a really bad idea, I'm okay.

STU: Yeah. Again, I think this is another situation, where it's better than Obamacare. But it's still Obamacare.

You would be able to get rid of the individual mandate. However, states could pass that on their own.

GLENN: I don't have a problem. If the state wants to do it, the state can do whatever they want.

STU: I personally think it's unconstitutional, as I know you do, at least from the federal side. But you're right, it's much better the smaller government that you get to.

Now, the reason why this is in such a rush is because the Republicans have ten days to do this. The reconciliation process, which basically means you only have to get 51 votes, instead of 60, that expires on September 30th by rule because you can only do it once per fiscal year. So they have to get it done by September 30th, which means that the House won't be able to change it. There will be no negotiation between them.

GLENN: Oh, what a surprise.

STU: Yeah. So it's --

GLENN: Convenient.

STU: Well, yeah.

So if this happens, they're going to use reconciliation in 2018 for the tax bill. That's why they need to get this done in the next ten days. And that's why it's such a panic.

So what does -- how does the vote look?

Forty-one pretty much on board, for sure. Forty-one senators have voted for all the Republican Obamacare repeals. So you're at 41. There are Heller and Graham. Graham is one of the cosponsors. Heller has said he's on board with this as well. That gets you to 41.

There are five that are likely to vote yes. Lamar Alexander, Shelley Moore Capito, Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, and Rob Portman, which all have very similar names. That puts you at 46 senators.

You probably are definitely not going to get Susan Collins, okay? You're probably definitely not going to get Lisa Murkowski, though that's not determined yet. You need to get all four of these in the scenario, which would be Mike Lee, who has not said anything about it yet. Jerry Moran, who has -- who is probably a yes. Although, he's complained about the Medicaid cuts, which are not really cuts, but that's a whole another story. John McCain who has voted against this thing. However, his buddy, Lindsey Graham is the guy behind this one. So I'm so far counting --

GLENN: Lindsey stinking Graham is the author of this.

STU: I know. And Rand Paul who has said flatout he's a no on it. But if he's the determining vote between this thing passing and not, will he hang with that? My guess is probably he will. I think there's a small chance of this passing. There's a better chance of this passing than what we remember them doing with skinny repeal. Remember that whole thing? Because that would have -- they would have had to negotiate between the House and the Senate. It never would have gone anywhere. There's a chance here.

GLENN: What's the worst thing in it?

STU: Well, there's a lot of bad things in it.

First of all, all the Obamacare money stays. Obamacare in California could actually go further to the left. If you're someone who lives in a liberal state, you could actually get hit to the left and go further left than Obamacare. There are people arguing that this actually paves the way for single-payer.

GLENN: Sure, it does. Some say it's a Trojan horse, but it's right there.

STU: It's right there. So a state like California could take this money and institute single-payer. They would have to obviously add some more tax dollars on their side to pay for it. But they could get the federal government to pay for let's say, three-quarters of single-payer. So they make single-payer in California. And they just go for it and go all out. If ten states do that, you've paved the way.

GLENN: I have to tell you -- as long as -- this isn't the world we live in, I don't care if California goes completely flat broke, as long as we make it very clear: We're not bailing your ass out.

STU: Right. And you know that's not going to work.

GLENN: And you that's not true. But that would be fine. Look, if you want to try something, try it. If you could make it work -- if we could find a single-payer system that actually worked, which I don't think is -- is possible --

STU: No.

GLENN: But if it would actually work, I'd be for it. It doesn't work.

Now, if you can do an experiment in your state and you're not going to drag me down with you, go for it. But I'm not in on your experiment. It doesn't work.

STU: Yeah. Of course, that's how it winds up going every time. You wind up bailing them out anyway. And that's the risk here. We're going to see that with pensions, which is another thing we should get to at some point. But this is -- one more thing on this: The DACA deal with Chuck Schumer. Remember this? They talked about this -- and, you know, they've denied, well, there's not really a deal.

But that whole deal, one of the big arguments for it on Donald Trump's side was to say that you're going to get help now from Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, when it comes to legislation like tax reform or Obamacare. Right?

Like maybe they'll work with you a little bit.

Listen to this quote from Chuck Schumer, when Graham-Cassidy comes out. A proposal that the president strongly supports.

After a few weeks of lying dormant, Trumpcare is back. And it's meaner than ever. While its latest version of Trumpcare may live under a new name, no matter how many ways Republicans try to dress it up, this bill is even more dangerous than its predecessors.

Even after dealing with this guy, he not only came out strongly against the proposal, which you can understand. He shouldn't change his principles. Right? He personalized it to Trump. He took one of Trump's old quotes calling it mean to vilify him even further, and called it even more dangerous than all of the predecessors. Never deal with these people. They never, ever, ever will honor what they've said.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.