Obama's about-face on the sequester

Back in January, Glenn shared that his New Year’s resolution for 2013 is to avoid saying President Obama’s name and playing any audio of his remarks. Anyone who breaks this rule is fined $20 per offense. While there have certainly been some bumps in the road – very expensive bumps – Glenn, Pat, Stu, and Jeffy have really seemed to take the challenge to heart and are feeling much better for it.

Last week, Glenn intentionally broke his own rule, saying “that guy’s” name three times, when he proclaimed: “Socialism is not my religion, government is not my church, and President Obama is not my god.”

Glenn went on to say the line two more times, costing him $60. But he it was $60 well spent. “And I said it gladly and I put $20 in,” Glenn said on radio this morning. “And then I said it again and I put $20 in and I said, ‘You know what? I'm going to give you 40 because I'm going to say it again.’ And it felt good. Now Pat has come to us and said, ‘I have to play the audio from that guy.’”

“I sent this to Pat last night,” Stu said. “And I said to him, ‘I don't know that we could play this because we're going to get fined if we play it, but it's so good.’”

With the automatic spending cuts set to kick in on March 1, Pat and Stu dug up some audio that shows President Obama’s blatant about-face on the issue.

Up first, Present Obama had this to say about the sequester in November 2011:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Already some in Congress who are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts of domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.

Based on these comments, Obama’s stance is pretty clear: there is no getting out of the automatic spending cuts, but 15 months later, the President is singing quite a different tune. During a press conference yesterday at the White House, Obama had this to say about the effects of the sequester:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: …Emergency responders like the ones who are here today, their ability to help communities respond to and recover from disasters will be degraded. Border patrol agents will see their hours reduced. FBI agents will be furloughed. Federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. Airport controllers and airport security will see cutbacks which mean more delays in airports across the country. Thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. Tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings.

“Wait a minute. So hold on just a second,” Glenn said. “This is making my blood boil. This is why we don't play this guy.”

The hypocrisy is astounding, even for this president, but perhaps the most ironic part of Obama’s recent remarks is how he keeps referring to the layoffs that will supposedly target firemen, teachers, and educators. Unless circumstances have changed in the last 24 hours – firemen and teachers do not work for the federal government.

“How many federal teachers and educators do we have? How many teachers are on the federal payroll? I want to know the number,” Pat said. “I want to know the exact number because it's zero! Federal teachers? There's no federal layoff of teachers.”

“But this is a strategy from this president, which is, when he makes these big speeches and public policy pronouncements, it comes out and he targets the things that only the people on the right care about,” Stu countered. “You know, again the border patrol, FBI agents, crime; federal prosecutors, crime; letting criminals go, more crime; airport security, terrorism; teachers and educators, family; child care for your kids, family. He goes after the rightwing catch phrases, the rightwing care groups, and he targets them to get them on board because he knows he's already got [Democrats]. They blindly follow.”

At the end of the day, the sequester is not substantial enough to actually prevent a credit downgrade or get government spending anywhere near under control, but it is a start –a start conservatives and Republicans should stand behind.

“It was [Obama’s] idea. He came up with it. So let's use this to our advantage,” Glenn said. “[Be] for sequester. Say, ‘Yeah, it's about time.’ And if it means that it's hard cuts on our side, we will go in there and we will target those cuts. Because you can't tell me that we can't cut 10% even out of the Pentagon and not survive. We'll take those cuts, and we urge the president to make more cuts across the board. We want another 10% sequester straight across the board. And after that one, we'll take another straight across the board 10% cut.”

“They could win that argument with the American people,” Glenn concluded. “But [Republicans] will not do it because they're big government progressives just as much.”

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.