Free Audio of The Glenn Beck Program available on TheBlaze Radio
Live 9am-Noon weekdays

Another Failed Paul Ryan “Fact Check”

Some guy once said “Facts are stubborn things.” Apparently, the fact checking websites out there didn’t get the memo. Sites like Politifact, the AP’s Fact Check, and Fact have been hammered lately for becoming increasingly partisan…at least against republicans. Some are worse than others undoubtedly,but I’ve been whining about this for a while.

Let’s look at one of the supposed “lies” by the Romney campaign.

FactCheck.Org claims that Romney’s ad stating the “Obama administration has adopted a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements” is false. (Before I deconstruct this, I just want to let Chris Matthews, Ron Fournier, Thomas Edsall, and Timothy Nolanknow that mentioning the word welfare does not mean that I’m racist.)

Fact Check claims that the Romney ad is false—by meticulously proving it’s true.

Here’s their reasoning:

“Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.”

The reason this is supposedly a lie, is because the employment part of welfare wasn’t completely banned.  Instead, a national requirement has just been moved back to a state option.  Obviously, if the state chooses the “eliminating” option, work requirements will be dropped. But, as Fact Check points out, many states won’t do that.

To emphasize how asinine this line is, let’s switch up the wording a little bit. What if we replaced the welfare laws with abortion:

“Roe v. Wade is not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the abortion requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase family planning.”

What Obama has done to work requirements is roughly the equivalent of overturning Roe vs Wade.  If Roe vs Wade was overturned, it wouldn’t make abortion illegal, it just returns the options to the states.  Add on an additional goal of “increasing family planning” (whatever that means) and it’s basically the same thing.

Do you think if Roe vs Wade was overturned that Democrats would say “this will gut abortion rights”?  Yeah, I think so.  Would the media ride to Republicans rescue to call that claim false because it only made abortion a state option?  I sort of doubt it.

Here’s a more detailed explanation from Fact Check. Org on how Obama isn’t gutting the welfare reform program:

“Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities.

Now replace with abortion:

“Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from Roe v. Wade that, among other things, require women to engage in one of 12 specific “family planning activities,” such as contraceptive training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote family planning,” which may or may not include some or all of the same abortion procedures.

If a Republican president–single handedly, without a vote–“adjusted” the regulations in this country on abortion in this fashion, the nicest thing a democrat would say about it was that it “gutted” women’s rights.  It would be presented by the media as the largest roll back in human rights since Xerxes (or at least Artaxerxes I).  Most certainly these changes would not be protected by various “non-partisan” fact checkers as inconsequential or mundane.

We’ve been fact checking the fact checkers for a long time.  Here’s to hoping more and more people continue to join the party.

Stutistics Episode 4: Obama’s Budget vs Reality Part Two

Last month, I showed you that Obama has definitely not kept his promises to stop running up the credit card

Oops. On GBTV, we aired the same video again by mistake. Technical difficulties, we apologize (unlike Obama for the terrible state of the economy). Lucky for you, you can watch Part Two right here.

Part Two addresses the deficit blame game.

Let’s concede the blame and give Obama a break. We place all the blame for the worst of the financial crisis on Bush, even though he wasn’t still president.   What do Obama’s numbers look like then?  This is one of our pilot episodes, and is just a freeze in time from an ever changing financial prognosis, but smart people run the numbers, and we just tell you about them

Did you know the New Black Panther Party are ‘right wing’ extremists?

Yes, the leadership of the New Black Panther Party is apparently…somehow… right wing according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.  You might remember the SPLC from all the times that they are quoted by the media as a non-partisan expert on everything hateful.  Or, you may remember them for naming the Family Research Council a hate group.

But, do you know your hate?  Let’s see!  Come on and play: “Which Radical Right Wing Activist Is It?”

With the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Summer 2012 report on the “30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right” let’s see if you can figure out which right-wing hate-filled activist said what!

Today’s match up is between…

New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz

and historian David Barton

So step right up (figuratively) keep your arms and legs inside the ride at all times (again, figuratively-I hope) and test your mental muscle!

“Zionism is racism, Zionism is terrorism, Zionism is colonialism, Zionism is Imperialism, and support for Zionism is the root of why so many were killed on September 11.”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton

“If education really matters, there’s a lot I can point out. Ben Franklin didn’t have an education at all. George Washington didn’t have a military education.”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton

“The twin evils in this world are the decision makers in Washington and the decision makers in Tel Aviv.”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton

“The only solution any time there is a funeral in the black community, is a funeral in the police community.”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton

“I‘m a firm believer in limited government and if I’m an advocate for that I need to do more myself. If individuals would pick up the social needs, the government wouldn’t need to.”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton

“The Pilgrims are truly national heroes.”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton

“I don’t want to talk about bin Laden. I want to talk about a terrorist called Christopher Columbus. I want to talk about a terrorist called George Washington.”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton


“Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies! Blow up Zionist supermarkets!”

A. Malik Zulu Shabazz
B. David Barton


How do you think you did? Turn your head upside down and look at the screen to find the answers.  If you can’t see them, realize that they aren’t there.  Then, also realize that they will never be posted.  I guess it’s just too difficult to determine a real extreme radical activist from an American historian.

By the way, next time you hear that there is a huge increase in the number of right wing extremist groups according to the SPLC, remember that they classify the New Black Panther Party leaders as ‘right wing.’







Fareed Zakaria Plagiarized Me.

Look at this sentence from Fareed Zakaria:

“Certainly we should try to identify such people and help treat and track them.”

And compare it to this sentence from my blog yesterday:

“Whether you think we should go with Ryan’s plan or you’d rather just raise taxes only on Republican millionaires by 445,000%—we need to do something.”

I know, I know. The nerve. I can’t believe he lifted “we should.”

Ok, maybe that’s not plagiarism, but Zakaria’s column in Time magazine definitely was.

Check it out for yourself:

Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

Compare that in its organization to this paragraph from a Jill Lepore New Yorker article from April:

As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.”

Shocking? Not to me. I’ve been saying it for a long time. Fareed Zakaria sucks.

But the mainstream media is apparently only just finding this out.

CNNWashington Post, and Time have all suspended him from his columns after the striking similarities were found.

He is also accused of plagiarizing in his extremely awful book. You know, the book this guy was reading.

It’s hard not to smile. The very guy who once questioned my own journalistic integrity has been suspended for plagiarizing. This is a man who has lied numerous times about myself and Glenn Beck, and now he’s going down in flames. Sound familiar?

Anyway, this isn’t Zakaria’s sole contribution to the demise of journalism, either. Remember when he interviewed George Soros? Oh, that’s right. You don’t—because NO ONE watches Fareed Zakaria. But, to save you the time, it was such an embarrassing hack job, that honestly, the plagiarism thing was actually an improvement.

This once glorified journalist is the guy who is giving commencement speeches at prestigious universities like Duke and Harvard.

Yeah, about those commencement speeches…

Zakaria’s Harvard and Duke commencement speeches were essen¬tially identical, built around the same anecdotes and points and often the same language.
The addresses have set some at Harvard and Duke atwitter.

“I spoke to him while he was here,” said one Duke employee, “and I got the strong impression from him that his Harvard speech would be a different presentation. Oh, well, at least Duke got it first.”

Not all of it, actually. Zakaria hit many of the same notes, including the line about ethics, in an address to the Johns Hopkins University class of 2011. He also used some of them for the Brown University class of 2009 and the Yale University class of 2007.

You have to love the money quote from his oft-repeated speech:

“You don’t need an ethics course to know what you shouldn’t do.’’

Hmmmm…seems like you do, Fareed.

Will Romney/Ryan end Medicare as we know it? Let’s hope so.

Great news from this weekend, Paul Ryan is Romney’s pick for VP. Great news especially if you want Paul Ryan to personally murder your grandma.

That’s what some people on the left would have you believe anyway. Paul Ryan wants to “end Medicare as we know it.” The way that the campaign is responding to that right now is basically “no we don’t.” That’s probably smart politically, but let me suggest another response. “Yup.”

Medicare, as we know it, is a complete failure.

Medicare, as we know it, can’t pay for itself.

Medicare, as we know it, covers health care costs for people like Bill Gates.

Medicare, as we know it, has over $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Medicare, as we know it, is a program that spends five times what it was as a percentage of the economy in 1970. 

Medicare, as we know it, will become insolvent in 2024, five years sooner than previously estimated.

Obviously, this could go on and on.  But, the bottom line is this:

Medicare, as we know it…sucks.

The Romney-Ryan ticket should own Obama’s assertion that his plan “ will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.” Everyone acknowledges that Medicare is in serious trouble.  Whether you think we should go with Ryan’s plan or you’d rather just raise taxes only on Republican millionaires by 445,000%—we need to do something.  Even Barack himself used to think we needed entitlement reform.  

So, why are Democrats adding “as we know it” if they themselves acknowledge it has to be changed?  Because they used to just say Ryan would “end Medicare”— and even the left leaning media called them out.  It was even called Politifact’s lie of the year for 2011.

Politifact has been an ardent, if unlikely, defender of Ryan’s Medicare plan. They have set the record straight time and time again when big fat lying liars wearing pants on fire who lie say Ryan’s budget plan will end Medicare.

Politifact clarifies each time that “if you are 55 years or older already, your Medicare coverage would not change. And if you are younger, the Ryan plan would leave you with a different Medicare system, but one in which the government still played a big role in your health coverage.”  That’s not exactly an encouraging quote for conservatives, and it understates how much better Ryan’s plan is than the current one, but it does show how badly democrats have been lying.

Let’s pretend for a second we live in an alternate universe where these liars are right and Paul Ryan is just out to murder Medicare. In that world, we really don’t have to worry about Paul Ryan killing Medicare. Medicare, as we know it, is killing itself. 

But the Ryan plan would work. An early indicator:

For instance, on August 1, three Harvard researchers published a study in theJournal of the American Medical Association (you can find it here, but it requires a subscription) that used data from the Medicare Advantage program (a much more limited experiment in insurer competition in Medicare) to consider how the Wyden-Ryan reform would have worked if it had been in effect in 2009. They found that, “nationally, in 2009, the benchmark plan under the Ryan-Wyden framework (i.e., the second-lowest plan) bid an average of 9% below traditional Medicare costs (traditional Medicare was equivalent to approximately the tenth-lowest bid).”

“In other words, even under the very constrained competition of Medicare Advantage, in which prices are set by Medicare’s bureaucracy, the Ryan-Wyden approach would have reduced per-beneficiary spending by 9 percent in a single year while still providing seniors with the same comprehensive insurance coverage. With real competition through a bidding system, the reductions in the rate of the program’s growth over time could be enormous. And if those savings don’t in fact materialize, we would just end up where we are today — which is where Democrats seem to want to end up anyway.”

Yes, I know, the new campaign slogan “Death to Medicare! (As We Know It)” probably won’t catch on anytime soon.  But, Romney/Ryan shouldn’t run away from it.  The current debate is like saying “Asking Glenn Beck to lose weight would end Glenn Beck as we know him.”  Yes, it would.  But, that doesn’t make it bad.  Unless, of course, you run an ice cream company.

Stutistics Episode 3: Obama’s Budget vs Reality (Part 1)

I would consider this the debut of Stutistics that wasn’t the debut episode. It was shot as the pilot episode a couple months ago. It is the first episode in a two part series dealing with Obama’s deficits. We needed to space out the staggering numbers so your eyeballs wouldn’t bleed. You’re welcome.

The numbers are based on Obama’s federal budget for 2012. The budget for 2013 has since come out, and the numbers are similar—just a little worse in many cases. You can check it out here if you have the emotional stability left after watching Stutistics.

Remember, we’re not using our estimates for what he’s going to spend. These are his numbers.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

Remember, this is a guy who promised that he was going to cut the deficit in half.

And let’s not forget that he told us Obamacare would cost only 900 billion over ten years.

Well, now that number has been “adjusted” to three times the original price tag- 2.6 trillion over the next ten years. Of course, Obamacare never would have passed if we knew it would cost $2.6 trillion. It’s a pattern of lies…but, that’s all he’s got at this point.

Now, some leftists will accuse us of not giving enough blame to Bush for the financial disaster of 2009. So, next week—we’ll dump all the blame on him and examine the numbers in a different way.

Drink Free or Die


I drink a lot of soda. A lot of it. In fact, it’s pretty much my favorite thing on earth. I have built a ceiling high shelf which lives in my garage, and holds 34 different flavors of soda. I’m not kidding. So, it makes sense that I am still thinking about Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on sodas over 16 ounces.

“Drink free or die” was the slogan a dozen or so people recently chanted outside City Hall Park in New York protesting Mayor Bloomberg’s idiotic ban on soda.

I love the idea…but is a dozen enough? It should be more like, I don’t know, 8 million?

This goes along with the recent poll that says 53 percent of New Yorkers say the soda ban is a bad idea and 42 percent disagree.

Most conservatives see this as a positive. Even in the progressive haven of New York City, the majority of people still oppose this ridiculous nanny statism. But, again, shouldn’t it be more like 100%-0%?

I’ve been to a lot of New York happy hours. I’ve participated in many of them. I’ve over-participated in many of them, too. I’ve never seen a lack of people who are pouring giant beers down their throats. How can they possibly think it is okay to ban certain amounts of soda?

I think this is a fundamental problem in communicating conservatism. Let me explain:

Here is the wording of the question:

“Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a ban on the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces including energy drinks and iced teas. You would still be able to get refills or buy more than one serving and be able to get diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy drinks, alcoholic beverages, or any drinks sold in a grocery or convenience store. Do you think the proposal to ban sugary drinks is a good idea or a bad idea?”

Obviously, the question is worded to present the most positive spin on the soda ban. Surely, if Texas proposed a ban on contraception that would still allow you to get it at grocery stores only, it wouldn’t get such optimistic treatment.

But, the issue here is, what I call, internal translation.

People are ASKED the question:

Should government ban drinks over 16 ounces?

People ANSWER the question:

Should people drink sodas over 16 ounces?

In other words, when they internalize the question, it becomes “is drinking tons of soda a good idea?” even though what we’re really talking about is government making certain forms of soda drinking illegal.

It’s really a serious issue, because it reveals something terrible about ourselves. We (at least a lot of people) think the only way to deal with an undesirable outcome, is government action. That internal translation is something conservatives need to figure out. One that, short of controlling the media and polling organizations, I don’t have a solution for yet.

There are obviously hard core progressives that want to control every aspect of your lives, like Michael Bloomberg. But the typical person who sides with him in this poll isn’t considering their personal liberty. They are just judging whether they think people should drink a lot of soda. This is the foundation upon which terrible policy is built.

What if the question was phrased like this:

“Should you be able to choose to drink more than 16 ounces of soda at a time?”

I have to believe that gets 70-75% approval, even in New York. Remember, these are people that supposedly put such a premium on the concept of choice that they are willing to want abortion to be legal even when they say it’s a bad thing personally.

Bloomberg says the soda ban is there to protect you and help keep costs down so the city doesn’t have to keep investing in sturdier gurneys to pry you out of your house to go to the hospital or something. But he adds: “If you want to kill yourself, I guess you have a right to do it.”

Yes, I do.  Unless, of course, you get your way.  Which you won’t.  At least in Texas.

Click here for FREE money!!!!

Need extra cash to go back to school?

Want some green to cover your minutes overage?

Pay off all the outstanding debt you’ve ever had?

Obama will pay it all!

Well, actually no, that’s a complete fabrication. But apparently, a lot of scammers are taking advantage of the fact that Obama acts as if he has an infinite stash of money that he hands out to everyone who needs it.

Over 10,000 people (!) across the nation have been duped into a dubious scam claiming that Obama will pay for their utility bills.

Victims get a bank account and routing number to use when paying their bills online, but only after giving up their Social Security numbers and other personal information.  Over 10,000 people surrendered their most private information with the actual belief that Obama was just going to pay their electric bill for no apparent reason. 10,000 people! (!!)

You’re probably asking yourself how could this have happened?

A more appropriate question would be, how could this have NOT happened?

This is a guy, who is running a campaign promising to take care of you during every important moment in your life from the cradle to the grave.   Why WOULDN’T you believe he’s going to pay your utility bills?

Not to mention, you have former members of his administration saying stuff like this:

“Shouldn’t we have the right and the liberty to be energy producers and not be dictated to 12 times a year by energy companies that dictate how much we’re gonna pay for energy, when we’re gonna pay it, how many asthma inhalers we’re gonna have as a consequence.”

Seriously…why would people possibly believe that Obama WASN’T just shoveling out cash to buy your vote?  If you need a refresher, click here if you dare, as a seemingly thinner host from Fox News plays you the audio.

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

The June jobs report came out last week and the numbers were as disappointing as the tragic Cruise-Holmes divorce. Disappointing yes. Surprising, no.

Alan Krueger, chairmen of Obama’s economic advisors explained simply that the unemployment rate was, of course, Bush’s fault.

“While the economy is continuing to heal from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, much more remains to be done to repair the damage from the financial crisis and deep recession that followed.”
June was no exception, because he says that same thing every single month.

But, if you’re still blaming the last guy, it’s probably important to actually compare your record to his.  Simply put—are you better off than you were four years ago?

Since Obama took office, the government has released the unemployment rate 42 times.  Of those 42 releases, the rate has been worse than it was four years before exactly 42 times.  In other words, at least as far as employment, the Obama presidency has given us exactly zero months that were better than four years ago.  Zero.

For those who are not mathematicians out there, that is a one hundred percent failure rate. New Slogan?

Barack Obama.  One hundred percent failure.


Next Blog Post

  Read Story »