WATCH: Glenn’s impassioned reaction to Obama’s U.N. speech

President Obama addressed the Unites Nations General Assembly yesterday, and his speech consisted of several questionable declarations about the state of U.S. foreign policy and the state of the world as a whole. On radio this morning, Glenn unleashed a passionate rebuke the President’s words.

“No one wants to believe that the President of the United States, any president of the United States, is a habitual liar. Nobody does. But how many times do you have to see it for your own self and hear it with your own ears before that label becomes appropriate and absolutely unavoidable insanity to not attach that label,” Glenn asked. “It is way past appropriate to call the President a liar. He is a liar. What is truly incomprehensible, however, is that he can look into the eyes of the American people and look the world in the face and say the things that he said yesterday with a straight face.”

One of the issues the President attempted to address was the tactics and motives of the National Security Agency (NSA) both domestically and abroad.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We've begun to review the way that we gather intelligence so that we properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies with the privacy concerns that all people share.

“That's unbelievable,” Glenn said. “Our privacy concerns as citizens, who are guaranteed to be protected under the Constitution, have been ignored. They have been lied about and they have been shredded.”

We know Americans are uneasy with the surveillance techniques of the federal government, but how do our allies feel? Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff used her speech, which opened the U.N. General Assembly, to accuse the U.S. of violating human rights and international law through espionage that included spying on her email.

PRESIDENT ROUSSEFF: The permanent mission of Brazil with the United Nations and even the very presidency of the republic of Brazil were subject to interception of communications. Tampering in such a manner in the life and affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and as such, it is an affront to the principles that should otherwise govern relations among countries, especially among friendly nations. What we have before us, Mr. President, is a serious violation of human rights and civil liberties, a case of invasion and capture of confidential secret information pertaining to business activities and, above all, a case of disrespect against the sovereignty of my country.

“Does this sound like she agrees – that her concerns have been properly balanced by the President of the United States,” Glenn asked. “Who are we turning into? She is, quite frankly, pissed and should be. She has every right to be. She was actually scheduled to come to Washington for an official state visit, but she cancelled it. Brazil cancelled an official state visit because of this spying program. Do you know anything about this? Have you heard this in the news?”

The President, according to Glenn, has “ruined or weakened” our ties with our closest allies, as much as he has worsened our relationship with our enemies.

“They are talking now about the United States of America violating basic human rights. This is not Iran saying this. This is Brazil,” Glenn said. “And then our President has the gall to stand up and say this yesterday:”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: As a result of this work, in cooperation with allies and partners, the world is more stable than it was five years ago.

“You've got to be kidding me: The world was more stable than it was five years ago. This is why, honestly, we don't concentrate on presidential speeches anymore because blood shoots out of my eyes,” Glenn proclaimed exasperatedly. “I can't believe the Hollywood world we live in, where everybody allows him to get away with this. The world is more stable than it was five years ago?”

Let’s quickly rundown just a few of the unstable events that have transpired in the last five years:

“You mean like before Egypt was on fire? Before Egypt rounded up 50,000 Muslim Brotherhood clerics and outlawed the group? Really? You mean we're more stable now? Before two changes in Egyptian leadership within a year, including a military coup that we don't even know if you'll call it a coup or not? You mean more stable than when the Christian churches were burned to the ground and Coptic Christians were being massacred? Because these are the changes in Egypt, by the way, Mr. President, that you encouraged,” Glenn explained.

“The world is more stable now that we don't have a dictator in Libya,” he asked. “Don't like the dictator, didn't like him, but now Al‑Qaeda is in charge of Libya, and the world is on fire there.”

The world was less stable before Libya burst into flames and four Americans were murdered in Benghazi. It was more stable, when the world thought that we would actually go rescue our own people,” Glenn continued. “You have the gall to say that the world's more stable after Kenyan terrorists began rising up and murdering innocent people at shopping malls? The world was really less stable before the Syrian Civil War, which hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Chemical weapons were used. Because we destabilized the world, Mr. President! And the world is on the brink of World War III, and you have the gall to say it's more stable?”

There is no quantifiable way to argue that the world is more stable now than when President Obama took office, so why is he even trying to make that case?

“Mr. President, you are far too intelligent for this. You know better than this, but maybe you don't because everybody is afraid to say anything to you. So maybe you don't. Maybe you've never learned a lesson because nobody ever has the guts to say anything to you,” Glenn said. “Nobody will ever say, ‘Do you realize what you've just done? Do you realize what that speech just did? Do you realize what the ramifications are? Do you realize, Mr. President?’ No. Instead, everybody fawns over you and says you're the greatest leader to ever live! So maybe you don't. But I can't believe anymore that you're not just straight‑up lying.”

“Let me understand this. Is that really your idea of stable, Mr. President? Is that really what you think is stable,” he continued. “Because to quote the Princess Bride, "You keep using that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means."

Glenn ended his impassioned monologue with a plea to the American people:

“Let me ask you something: Where are you? Where are you? When will you have the basic human dignity and decency to stand up and denounce,” Glenn asked. “I don't care if you denounce this man or denounce your vote. I don't care. You denounce what's going on. You stand up and say, ‘No, not in my name.’ When? For the sake of our lives, our children, our God, our liberty? When will you finally wake up and say, ‘I can't be a part of this, not in my name. Not in my name.’”

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?