Impeachable: President Obama waives law that forbids U.S. from providing ‘aid and comfort’ to the enemy

Glenn opened the radio program this morning with some very troubling (and bizarre) news that lead him to call for President Obama’s impeachment. Yesterday, the President waived a federal provision specifically designed to prevent the U.S. from supplying arms to terrorist groups in order to begin providing military assistance to the Syrian rebels.

“Today I come to you with the news that our President actually waived the restriction on countries supplying arms to international terrorists, specifically Al‑Qaeda. And the reason why he waived that is because we're providing arms to international terrorists, specifically Al‑Qaeda,” Glenn said. “Now, if that isn't an act of treason, I don't know what is. If that is not an act of insanity, I don't know what is.”

“This isn't, ‘Well, we don't know who the terrorists are. We don't know who the rebels are.’ No, no. Mr. President, you apparently do know exactly who they are because you felt compelled to waive the restriction on arming them,” he continued. “Now, why would you do that? So you can no longer make the case ‘We don't know who these guys are’ because the President felt compelled to tell us who they are by waiving the restrictions. They're international terrorists. If that's not an act of suicide, if that's not an act finally of the President admitting we're on the wrong side – when you have to waive the law so you can arm terrorists, you're on the wrong side.”

While we know that not all of the rebels are terrorists, arming any faction that includes known terrorists is in direct violation of our federal laws, which is why President Obama was forced to waive the restrictions that prevented such action.

As Pat and Stu both explained, you wouldn’t eat something that was known to contain 15% of poison. So why would you arm a group of people with some percentage of a ‘poisonous’ underbelly?

“Because the president could go to jail if he didn't waive the law… You know, I know I just did a thing in the New York Times just, like, two weeks ago where I said I haven't called for impeachment of the President. I haven't called for it,” Glenn said. “I'm calling for the impeachment of the President of the United States. The President of the United States needs to be impeached.”

It has taken nearly five years and countless scandals for Glenn to utter the word “impeachment” in relation to President Obama, but it seems that his latest action – potentially aiding and abetting the enemy’ – might just be among the most egregious things this President has done.

“It's not politics. It's not politics. What do you stand for, America? If that one doesn't do it, nothing will,” Glenn said. “You are arming people…You are empowering them. This is not, ‘Hey, I disagree that we have knocked out Al Qaeda,’ which, we did, and obviously that's true. Everything the President told you on the run up that we got ‘Al Qaeda on the run,’ that's clearly not true now, is it? Because Al Qaeda is growing in Libya. Al Qaeda is growing in Egypt. Al Qaeda is growing, and we're arming them in Syria. So if those things you know, you could disagree with. This one, you're arming and aiding the enemies of the United States of America.”

“To add on,” Stu interjected, “for something [the President himself admits] is not a direct threat to the United States of America… But just to say you could come up with some crazy scenario in which you would help these groups that are not good, to help you against an enemy you deem a greater threat. There's no one who makes the case that Syria's a greater threat to us than Al Qaeda.”

“We did not get into bed with Hitler to defeat Japan. We did not do it,” Glenn said of the U.S. situation during World War II. “No one could say, ‘Let's give Hitler a whole bunch of arms so he can help us defeat Japan.’ Because even if they do defeat Japan, they will come and use those very arms against us. It's the height of insanity. But I also believe it is impeachable. I believe it is treason. And the President knows it's against the law. That's why he had to waive that law yesterday.”

Front page image courtesy of the AP

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.

President Donald Trump has done a remarkable job of keeping his campaign promises so far. From pulling the US from the Iran Deal and Paris Climate Accord to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the president has followed through on his campaign trail vows.

RELATED: The media's derangement over Trump has me wearing a new hat and predicting THIS for 2020

“It's quite remarkable. I don't know if anybody remembers, but I was the guy who was saying he's not gonna do any of those things," joked Glenn on “The News and Why it Matters," adding, “He has taken massive steps, massive movement or completed each of those promises … I am blown away."

Watch the video above to hear Glenn Beck, Sara Gonzales, Doc Thompson, Stu Burguiere and Pat Gray discuss the story.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."