Glenn: Syria a "sick opportunity" progressive revolutionaries to remold the world

I want to talk to a little bit about what we are about to do. The president is ready to go it alone now for the second time without congressional approval. Remember when the left hated this?

His first unauthorized kinetic military action was in Libya. The bombing of Syria is now also on the horizon, and the Russians are telling us it could start as early as tomorrow. Reports say the bombings will last two days at the most. I think his attempt here is laughable, especially considering “one U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

Oh, is that our American threshold now? Let’s not go out there and win; let’s just go out there and do enough so people can’t make fun of us. Oh my gosh, lives are at stake. People will die, and we’re doing it just at the level to where we’re not mocked. Jay Carney all but assured – try this one – that Assad is of course going to remain in power.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change. They are about responding to a clear violation of an international standard that prohibits the use of chemical weapons.

Oh my gosh, so we are…we’re just gonna…we’re gonna…what? Here’s the real reason, somebody’s credibility is on the line, the president’s. That’s not a reason to kill somebody. There are many reasons to declare acts of war but never, never to save face. I honestly, I have looked at this problem over and over again, and I can’t find one good reason to do it.

You know why this map is behind me? Do you know why we originally put this map up? We put this map up because a few months ago I did a show where I said World War III is coming, and it’s going to happen in Syria. Well look, here we are. Now maybe World War III doesn’t happen. I know The New Yorker is finally coming to their senses, and they said in an article they published yesterday, they said, gee, it looks like 1914, doesn’t it? Yes, it does.

I can find a million reasons why we shouldn’t do this but not one why we should. Is it going to further destabilize Syria? Yep. Is it going to further destabilize the region? Yep. Will it, if this is our deal that we just want to do enough to not get mocked, what do you think the people in the Middle East are going to say about us then? Does it increase our credibility? Does it decrease your gas prices?

I don’t mean to boil it down to that, but that’s where most people are. They don’t give a flying crap about anything unless it affects their gas prices or their groceries, and most of ’em don’t even say anything unless the media is there to tell them oh you know… It’s going to make your gas prices go up. Oil is already at $110. Stock market’s had a rocky few days.

Hundreds of thousands have been murdered, hundreds of thousands, before the alleged chemical weapons killed a few hundred at most. I’m not saying that that’s not bad. It is, but may I just point out that they used machetes, they used machetes on 500,000 people in Rwanda, and we turned the other way. You’re appalled by a few hundred. You’re not appalled by tens of thousands that are dying.

And what caused this unrest in the Middle East? I’ll tell you what caused it. What caused the unrest in Syria was us jumping on the bandwagon and saying people need to stand up and overthrow their regimes, and so they did. And then they did in Libya, and then we helped them there. And then they did in Syria. It’s our fault, and apparently we only care when somebody has used gas on people, not machetes, not bullets, just gas.

Will we bomb after every violation of international law? Can I ask you something? Has the intelligence community, your trust in them, has it increased or decreased since the Iraq war? Because they’re telling us exactly what they said in the Iraq war. It looks like they got that one wrong, huh? What grounds are there to believe anything about the new claims of weapons of mass distraction, and even if they’re absolutely true, should we be involved?

Look, I want to make this very clear, I was for the war in Iraq. I have already said I regretted that, 2006, that fast. I talked about it, we’re not fighting this to win. We’re doing something else they’re not telling us about. The president can also only go to war with a congressional approval. That is the argument from the left. Nope, not now. President can do it around Congress if the U.S. is threatened. Are we being threatened?

What imminent threat does Syria pose to America? If I may quote the left, what has Assad ever done to you? Fighting Assad also means that we are now fighting alongside of Al Qaeda rebels. Remember the guy who cut the heart out of the Syrians and ate it? We’re on his side now. Well, how about this one, we don’t have the money for this. Do you know we have to borrow more money from China or print more money, and do you know that our interest rates just went up by a point?

And by the way, China is against this, so you think they’re going to lend us more money? By the way, it’s not just China. It’s China, Russia, and Iran. Boy, that sounds like a nasty axis power, doesn’t it? If China gives us an ultimatum, we have no leverage. We learned that under Bush. When Bush didn’t have the stones to send back their, you know, riddled with lead paint toys, when they were sending us literally poisonous dog food, and we’re like wait, I don’t know, you know, we love China. Remember that?

You think we have the stones to do this? They own us. Two days of bombing, well, we’re going to show them. What happens after two days of bombing? What happens after two days of bombing if he decides to gas somebody else? What happens if it escalates? What’s the plan? How about this one that I used to hear all the time, what’s the exit strategy?

What does this latest kinetic military action accomplish? I can’t see the upside of engaging America into a civil war in Syria. I can’t see the upside of putting America in such great risk. It’s high risk, low reward. Why would you do that? Well, the guesses have been, you know, the typical stuff – well, you know, Obama hates America. Okay. Well, he’s incompetent. I don’t think so.

He’s just egotistical to believe his own hype that all these things are working. That one’s a possibility. But may I ask you to think like a radical left, a Progressive, one who believes that the U.S. is just too dominant, and we need the UN. The UN should be the ultimate arbiter in global disputes, right? That’s Bill Clinton. That’s Jimmy Carter. That’s this president. It’s the entire left.

Rushing to bomb Syria is not about war. I contend we should consider that it is about peace, and here’s what I mean by that: This administration knows we are on the brink of World War III. The global economy is fragile. Global stability is weak. The West is on the edge. It’s only a matter of time before it crumbles. Iran will eventually lose any remaining restraint and go after Israel. Syria starts spilling across the border. I mean, you know this.

When it all falls apart, and the West is so weakened, who puts it all back together again? You see, war is…after a long period of just running things into the ground, war makes the people of the world forget what the world was like before the war. Beyond that, history shows us that war also just changes all the players. It changes borders. It changes everything.

This time, Russia, China, America, Europe – Europe and America. Is Europe strong? Is America strong? Is China strong? Is Russia strong? Is the UN strong? That’s them. Here’s us. Really? We gather at the UN because we have to stop an international crisis, and everything is teetering on the edge, and people will cry out stop the madness! And so we do the international way.

China has great leverage over us. I mean, why aren’t we listening to them now? I guarantee you we will listen to them at the bargaining table, and we will concede. For instance, if they say look, we’ll forgive your debts, just sign the UN arms treaty, just go under the banner of the UN. This is about destroying sovereignty. The United Nations will in the end broker a deal, making them the new global superpower and making us just one of the guys.

That’s what everybody wants, the United States just to be average like everybody else. That’s what this is about, and quite honestly, this is George Soros’s dream come true.

VIDEO

George Soros: So I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating…

Hello, George, is that you? Yes. And when the U.S. dollar is no longer the reserve currency, guess who’s going to be even richer, George Soros, yes. He’s in bed with those who want to control the decline of America. He talks about it – we need a slow gradual decline, and are people going to get hurt? Yes, level out the playing field. He’s getting it, are you?

 

I would love to believe that cruise missiles are stuffed with magic Middle East peace fairy dust, but I don’t think so. I’d love to believe the Muslim Brotherhood will see the light and say you know what, we should live right next to people who believe in Jesus, but I don’t think so. You know what, not only are we going to leave the Jesus people alone, but we’re going to leave the Jews alone too. That ain’t happening, and two days of bombing in Syria is not changing that.

My father used to say to me before you do something, son, what you have to do is you have to make a list, and it’ll be very clear to you. And so I did make a list. I made a list of winners and losers, and I wanted to find out which was which. Because this is the loser board, right? It’s Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic extremists, UN globalists, revolutionaries around the world, anti-American/Western forces, China, Russia. Those are the people we want to lose, right?

And we want to win the Syrian people. We want the Egyptian people. We want the Jordanian people, America, you know, American pocketbooks. We want Israel. We want Europe. We want the West to win. But if you actually do this, and you say okay, how does Al Qaeda lose in Syria? How do the Syrian people win? You can’t, and you do it all the way down the list. The problem is this plan does that. There are your winners. There are your losers.

How in anyone in their right mind want to do any of this? The good guys lose. The bad guys win. Why in the world would we be doing this? Stupidity? Nope. There is some vested interest in assisting radical extremists? Yep. I believe a lot of things about the current administration. They’re not stupid. That is one thing I will never believe.

I believe they are vested deeply in the remolding of the world to their heart’s desire, but to remold it, you have to heat it up first. I don’t often agree with The New Yorker, but they have a great article that takes the form of the conversation for and against, and they mention 1914: “I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is a Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August 1914.” It is.

1914 is the year the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. It was the Archduke Ferdinand moment, the moment I’ve been telling you for years I have been dreading and looking for. It is the moment that eventually led to World War I. This is what I said when I was at Fox January 2011.

VIDEO

Glenn: I believe that Tunisia may have been the Archduke Ferdinand moment that I have been warning about. And I’ve been talking about the perfect storm that was formulating, and I said at some point there is going to be an Archduke Ferdinand moment. And it will be something that the world dismisses and most likely you will dismiss at first, and then it will snowball.

That was the Tunisian guy that set himself on fire that the president said was Rosa Parks that encouraged the people in Egypt to stand up, that encouraged the people in Libya to stand up, that encouraged the people in Syria to stand up, and now the global powers are erased. But remember, I’m a conspiracy theorist, and I’m a nut you should dismiss.

Syria is not about teaching Assad a lesson. Two days of bombing probably won’t even seem out of place in Syria today unfortunately. Syria is not a response to the shock and horror of murder. Hundreds of thousands have died before in the latest attacks. The Coptic Christians, they’re not even saying anything about. Syria is this: It is a sick opportunity for the globalist, progressive revolutionaries in our own administration and all around the globe to remold the world closer to their heart’s desire.

Front page image courtesy of the AP

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?