Progressives: Pro-choice on abortion, anti-choice on EVERYTHING else

The 'official' Democratic Party platform now states that they "strongly and unequivocally support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay."

So, just how "pro-choice" are the Democrats?

In an effort to learn more about the party's platform, Reason TV wanted to investigate what the Democrats mean exactly when they say "choice." Glenn played the amazing audio of Reason asking the delegates to explain their stance on "choice" this morning on radio.

Given their strong statements on choice, their stance on food choice, school choice, even light-bulb choice, may surprise you:

When asked about whether or not they were pro-choice, the initial response of all of those shown in the video is "yes."

Here are a a few examples of the initial responses:

"I am absolutely pro-choice."

"Yes, it's a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her body."

"Yes, a woman should have a right to choose based on her doctor and her family."

But, as Reason tried to interject a little common sense into the conversation, the delegates stances seemed to shift.

For example, when one delegate is questioned about their stance on choice in regards to transfats, one delegate said this:

"I think a lot of people make harmful decisions, there's alcohol, there's cigarette smoking, and so I understand the government trying to intervene because the American taxpayer pays a lot of money for fat people."

So this delegate finds Coca-Cola to be a threat to your body, but abortion is a healthy decision?

Glenn pointed out that it is well documented that massive psychological damage can occur to patients receiving abortions - but the left doesn't want to talk about that.

"People should only be allowed to make good choices," another delegated responded in Reason video.

Of course, they fail to consider who gets to decide what is a "good choice" and a "bad choice."

When asked if consumers should have the right to choose what kind of lightbulbs they want to purchase, the delegates quickly became anti-choice again:

"No, they shouldn't because if they're polluting the Earth, it's going to last longer than their lifetime."

Another noted that even if you "prefer the warm glow" or "are that particular about lighting" (which Glenn very much is) it shouldn't "come before the safety and future of our planet."

Sorry, Glenn.

How about right to work states? Surely if the delegates are pro-choice and, like we keep hearing, "fighting for the middle-class," they are all for an individual getting to choose whether or not they want to join a union, right?

When asked if being in a union should be the choice of the worker, one woman actually did respond, "It should be a choice not to be in a union."

Unfortunately, once she heard the phrase "Right to Work," which the left leaning media and Democrat politicians hammered during the Wisconsin drama she quickly changed her tune.

"No, I ‑‑ well, a choice not to be in a union, but I think unions do good.  So I would choose ‑‑ uh…I guess not.  I'm not in favor of 'Right to Work'."

Not surprisingly, the delegates weren't in favor of school choice either.

When asked again at the end of the video, a few of the delegates had a bit of a different response:

"I'm definitely pro choice when it comes to people's bodies."

"I'm pro choice on everything about everything about everything - on an informed choice, and government has a role in that."

"I'm pro-intervention."

"That is amazing," Glenn responded to the unbelievable audio - later adding, "That should be sent to all of our college age students."

It turns out the Democrats are small government - but only on one issue.

"They actually appeal to people's small government sensibilities in the abortion argument," Stu pointed out.

It shows the superiority of the argument conservatives make on almost every topic, because that's what the left turns to when they need it.

Telling the government to 'get out of your business,' or in this case your bedroom, connects with Americans.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.