Al Gore down with eugenics?

Al Gore has been making the media rounds to promote his latest exciting book about the future or something - but his vision reeks of the disturbing science of eugenics. Yes, the ‘science’ progressives of the early 20th century promoted that featured breeding ‘undesirables’ out of existence - Al Gore is bringing it back!

On Morning Joe, Gore told the MSNBC hosts:

The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, wait a minute, not too fast.

"Do you know what this is? Do you know where this philosophy comes from?" Glenn said. "I can take out the books. You know what? I wonder if I have them here or at the library at home. I can take out the eugenics books that he is quoting, he is quoting from right now. Whether he knows it or not. This is genetics. This is eugenics nonsense that was discredited in World War II. This stuff, this stuff is extraordinarily dangerous."

"This is extraordinarily dangerous. This is the most dangerous ‑‑ look, we've been talking about abortion, we've been talking about the sanctity of life, we've been talking about all these things. But I'm telling you this is a gigantic warning sign. Because now you're ‑‑ now you're taking it on political philosophy. And now you're saying that that is now genetic, and we all know ‑‑ and what he's saying is that if you are a liberal, you want to ‑‑ you want to push forward. But you're an Neander ‑‑ you are born and termed at birth to be a Neanderthal and be a conservative and say you want to harm progress."

"Listen what they're doing. They are devaluing life, they are devaluing all life. You just had last week saying all life isn't equal, all people are not created equal. Already have that. Some people are worth killing. This is all the same eugenics stuff. And now you're born as either somebody who moves us forward or somebody who moves us back. When you know eugenics, when you know the history, you know that that's exactly how it started with Margaret Sanger."

Watch the video of Gore's comments below:

Glenn went into further detail on this story when he came back at the start of the second hour of radio. Below is the transcript of that segment:

GLENN: I would like to be less definitive and more exploratory on this Al Gore statement that I find unbelievably shocking. He was on MSNBC and he's talking about the human makeup, and I'm sorry but I have heard this language before. This is the language of eugenics.

PAT: Margaret Sanger.

GLENN: Margaret Sanger.

PAT: This is ‑‑ and what's‑his‑face, George Bernard Shaw.

GLENN: Get the George Bernard Shaw audio too ready, will you?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you don't know, the progressives are the ones who came up with eugenics, and you have to excuse some of them in the early 1900s because science had just ‑‑ you know, in 1870, 1880, you had people like Edison saying there's no reason to wire everybody's houses with anything but DC battery power, you know, DC electricity because you'll never have anything in your house that is electric really except for lights. I mean, even Edison didn't see what was coming. Within ten or fifteen years, the whole world had begun to change and now there was science and that's where electric shocks came in: Let's do electric shock therapy. And you had Darwin and all these things were happening all the same time. And Marx. So you had Nietzsche, Marx, electricity, technology. Everything was changing and converging into one. So you had a bright, beautiful tomorrow. You had a beautiful better living through eugenics.

I have the books. Tomorrow ‑‑ or I mean, next week we'll do a special show on this because I ‑‑ you have to know this history. And in one of them by the guy who, I'm trying to remember his name. Shoot. It's a phantom, the Phantom Public is the name of the book by Walter Lippmann. Walter Lippmann is extraordinarily loved by the media. He is the father of modern media. He was one of the fathers of CBS and CBS News. He was part of the Wilson administration. Really dangerous guy. He helped put together the Council on Foreign Relations. And in his book called the Phantom Public, he talks about people who are just too stupid and they'll never get it and they will never ‑‑ they vote and they think they're doing the right thing but they just don't know and it's because ‑‑ because of genetics. Genetics just show that they'll just never get it, and they'll continue to push us into the background.

But he's ‑‑ he talks about how eugenics and scientists are now looking to ways to build the perfect voter, and someday we'll be able to weed out these genetic flaws in people and we'll have people who are all progressives. But in the meantime what we're going to have to do is brainwash and trick some of these people.

This was the great hope of the progressives during the Wilson administration and the Theodore Roosevelt administration from the turn of the century up until it was wildly discredited by the Germans.

We also, I'll bring in next week, letters from the Nazis to the progressives in California saying, "You brought all this progressive stuff over, you brought all this eugenics stuff; you guys, we can't thank you enough. May you never forget what you've done in Germany because you have now put the state on this track, and the things that we're going to be able to do because of what you taught us scientifically will never be forgotten." Oh, that's true. I mean, we even have ‑‑ we even have signs that say "Never forget."

They were responsible. It came. These ideas that happened in Nazi Germany came from the progressive movement in the United States of America, secondarily from the Fabian Socialists in England. It was a poison from the West that went east. And there are those who still believe it.

We had a ‑‑ we told you a story of a big lefty in Salon that wrote just last week that all, all men are not created equal. All life is not equal. She said, "Let's be honest. We all know that a baby is..." she said, "When I was carrying my children, I always knew that was a baby in there. So let's stop this bogus argument. We all know it's a baby. Let's just be up front and let's use the real argument: All life is not equal." That goes against everything that Americans used to stand for. But David Barton gave me an extraordinarily wild fact. Does anybody remember last night? I think it was 60% of the American people that voted didn't know that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, this last November. In exit polls, 60% didn't know. I mean, how do you win? How does America survive if you don't even know, not know the Constitution; not know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That is terrifying. So not all people are created equal.

You now have the president through executive order doing studies on who should and who shouldn't have guns. He's demonizing anybody who's on the other side, saying there's something wrong, and I will not have these people stand in the way of progress. He's coopting and now controlling our doctors and our hospitals. They have a death panel. It wasn't in the healthcare bill as we told you at the time; it was in the stimulus package. They are right now having a hard time getting anybody to go on this death panel because those are the people who are going to decide who lives and dies. And if you have an attitude that not all life is created equal, if you are funding death camps by the name of Planned Parenthood, forget about your FEMA camp. Your death camp in America is Planned Parenthood. And you're funding it. When the world is going towards no value on life and when your world is going towards a place where it's so egomaniacal, there is no one but them. No one but the individual. No one else matters. "I want mine, Grandma. You had yours. I was promised this." When you have a world that is so inner twined and in five years from now you will not recognize our society. The beginning of the singularity is already here. The merging of man and machine. The merging of reality and total virtual reality, but a reality you will not be able to tell the difference between.

Stu, do you remember when I said to you back in the Nineties there's going to come a day where you won't believe your eyes because they will be able to make any image on camera, any picture? It won't matter? You could just ‑‑ we're there now.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Would you agree?

STU: Oh, sure.

GLENN: I'm telling you now you will not be able to tell the difference between virtual reality, real reality sometime down the future, probably within the ‑‑ in the next ten years. That changes everything. All of this technology that is going on right now, do you know who's teaching ethics on technology? No, that's not a rhetorical question. We can't find anyone. They're not teaching ethics. When it comes to technology, they're not teaching ethics. And so now Al Gore comes out and he says on NBC for all the world to hear, and if you know anything at all about eugenics, if you know about the early 20th century progressives when Hillary Clinton said she is cut from that cloth, "I am one of the early 20th century progressives," all eugenics, all Marxist want‑to‑bes, just they're not Marxists; they just want the Marxist utopia without the revolution. That's the 20th century progressive, early 20th century progressive. And they're almost unanimously cheerleaders for eugenics and weeding out the week. If you know anything about that, listen to what Al Gore just said.

GORE: The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, "Wait a minute, not too fast." And when these natural tendencies are accentuated with political ideologies or for that matter religious factions and the other divides that are sometimes used to ‑‑ for advantage, then it can get out of hand.

GLENN: Can it? And then what do you do? So you are born just only able to understand the future or dragging us back into the past. And then people will put a label on that. You'll either go into religion or you'll become a conservative.

PAT: Well, if you're one of those that are holding us back, of course you'll go into religion.

GLENN: Yeah. Or conservative.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Otherwise you're a Democrat, a liberal, and you're an atheist. You're a scientist.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Extraordinarily dangerous. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. Maybe I'm just reading too much into it. Maybe I've read too much history.

STU: I found the story, the study he's talking about. This is ‑‑ it comes from New Scientist, British weekly scientific magazine. The title: Two Tribes: Are Your Genes Liberal or Conservative. Delves into the research on the formation of political opinions. I remember us talking about the story when it happened because it talks about how conservatives are dogmatic, routine‑loving individuals while liberals come across as free‑spirited and open‑minded.

GLENN: That's how they come across, yes.

STU: Yeah. According to the emerging data, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. These views are deep‑seeded and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be a liberal is like trying to persuade someone to not have brown eyes. We have to ‑‑

GLENN: Oh, let's ‑‑ oh. Maybe we should get some twins.

STU: Then it goes on, dogmatic types, more conservative, those who express interest in new experiences tended to be liberals. A much stronger link exists between political orientation and openness, which psychologists define as including traits such as an ability to accept new ideas, a tolerance for ambiguity.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: And an interest in different cultures.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: People with high openness scores turned out to be almost twice as likely to be liberals.

PAT: Openness? How do you describe liberals as open to anything? They're not open.

GLENN: They are not open to ‑‑

PAT: ‑‑ anything but their own opinions.

GLENN: You know, can I tell you something?

PAT: That's it.

GLENN: ‑‑ Penn Jillette is ‑‑ and I'm sorry I keep talking about him but I find him one of the most fascinating men I know. Penn Jillette is just fascinating. When Penn Jillette and I met, and I'll tell you, I say this over again, I really respect him, blah, blah‑blah, but I think he's a bigot. Old information. He's not. He's not. Penn wrote to me last week, last week or a couple of weeks ago. Because we were ‑‑ we have these fascinating ‑‑ I'd love to do a book just on our e‑mail exchanges.

STU: The Penn and Glenn letters.

GLENN: They are truly remarkable because I'm trying to understand his point of view and he's trying to understand my point of view I think. And we're coming back and forth and we have these just all‑day exchanges. I'm not kidding you, one of them was just on that guy in Florida that was having sex on ‑‑ pleasuring himself on a donkey, not in a ‑‑

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay. And that's how it started, 8:00 on a Saturday. At the end of the day ‑‑ we just kept going back, you know, about, you know, 300 characters maximum and just keep going back and forth on it. Fascinating. At the end I kind of joked with him. I said, you know, I don't know if ‑‑ I don't know if we're closer or farther apart. I'm not really sure. I have to digest this whole conversation over a very long period of time, I said, but then again I'm a guy who would never be invited to your house. Going back to a reference that he said about the second or third time I met him at CNN and he said to me, you know ‑‑ I said, you're fascinating. I'd love to get together with you sometime. And he said, I'd love to. He said, of course you're never coming over to my house. And he was serious. He said, you know, because you're a religious freak. And he said, I'm never going to have you religious people over. He said it's like, why would I put a poison in my house? And I was shocked. And I said, boy, I thought, I thought you were a lot of things but I never thought you were a bigot. And he walked away and we've always ‑‑ we had for a while still a relationship but it was a weird relation ‑‑ it was terse. He wrote to me and he said, I apologize that I have never told you this, he said, but you changed me. He said, yes, I used to be bigoted against religious people, he said, but you've changed me. I'm not. He said, I apologize for all of that and I am sorry and I am trying to fight my closed‑mindedness on anybody that I don't understand or I don't agree with. He said, on all fronts. He said, so I apologize. And now he's become a really, a big defender of people who are religious even though he's not. And he doesn't understand it. That's an open‑minded person. And I'm sorry, that is not ‑‑ he doesn't call people enemies. That is not a liberal. That is not somebody who says, "You know what? I'm somebody who's going to, you know, we've got to wipe these people out or we've got to find out if we can ‑‑ no. I respect them for who they are. Everybody is different. And as long as we try to play nice and I don't try to shut you down or call you names, you don't do that to me. We all live together. It's like a family. Just, there's billions of us. You live in the house and you all try to get along, even though you don't agree with each other. We all try to get along. We don't try to wipe each other out. And I would never as a dad go and say to one of my daughters, "Well, genetically, you know, she's born like that. She only believes those things and she's going to fall into a religion" or she's going to fall into some ‑‑ she will fall into some atheists. If I'm a conservative, she will fall in with some atheists or she will fall into some liberals because she was born that way, you know." Oh, my gosh. What are we turning into?

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?