Glenn: Individuals can change the world

May 23, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

On radio this morning, Glenn reflected on some of the news stories of the day that are shaming private businesses into making certain decisions. As Glenn explained, private businesses have the right to make decisions and operate as they see fit, and he proceeded to dive into a monologue that considered the ever-changing role of gatekeepers and the power of the individual to overcome those barriers to entry.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

There’s a story about Amazon. Amazon is getting pushback because they're in dispute with some publisher – and I don't know what even the dispute is about – but they don't want to sell these books made by this publisher. So people are standing up and saying, ‘Amazon can't silence my book.’ Yes, they can. They're a private company. Yes, they can.

This is where freedom of speech and freedom gets ugly. Yes, they can. I don't have a problem with it unless it's a regulated industry. In other words, if the government said, ‘No one else can sell books online except… Amazon.com and iBooks… And if you want to, you got to come through us.’ Well, then you have a problem because then a publisher cannot get his book out. But if all the private companies, in an unregulated situation, decide, ‘I don't want to do it,’ then nobody is there to force them to do it. You can't force people to do it, if it's all purely private.

[…]

They're making the case that Amazon is crushing voices. No, Amazon has the right to do that as long as it's not a government regulated industry. And government regulation is the problem. If I can start selling books myself online, I may not be able to compete and make it as good as Amazon right at the very beginning. It's like WalMart. WalMart started out with a guy's truck, man.

For some reason, this Disney prospectus is going around. There's like the second story I've read and the Huffington Post has a story about the prospectus of Disneyland that I have, and they're showing pictures of it on the Huffington Post today. I don't know why. But the most amazing thing about that is in 1953, he was told no by the banks. But there was no government regulation. Think of the restrictions of this. October of 1953, he's turned down. He needs $17 million. He's turned down by all of the banks. By the end of 1953, beginning of 1954, he has financing. So he gives it the green light in the beginning of 1954. Summer of 1955, he has purchased the orange field in California, cleared all of the land, built all of the infrastructure, designed and built all of the rides, all of the merchants, done all of the publicity for it, and opens the gates in 18 months. There's no way you get even the ground study in 18 months [today]. That's when a man was free.

Now, let me ask you this. I'm using Walt Disney because I relate to him. I thought about this the other day. Imagine America, what would we be like if Walt Disney never lived? What would America be like if Walt Disney never lived? How much history would have been lost? How much joy would have been lost? How much would we not believe in the entrepreneur in a one man can make a difference? Think of that. Walt Disney, he was not the smartest guy in the room. He had sheer willpower. The same thing with Steve Jobs. It was sheer willpower. Pixar did not want Steve Jobs… In the end, they had to take the offer from Steve Jobs. But everything he did was sheer willpower. ‘No, guys, we're doing it. Let's go. We're doing it.’

Can a man still do that? We're building this network. Yes, you can build a television network. You can build a successful television network, successful book publishing company. You can build a successful new charity. You can even make your own jeans and sell them and make that a success. Yes, you can do all of those things. Now, can you get the mass distribution? I can't build a mass distribution platform anymore. You cannot build Comcast. You have to go through the government. So I can only build so much. And then the gatekeepers start. That's what we came away from. That's what we wanted to escape – the gatekeepers. And that's what they're putting everywhere. Sure, you can educate yourself. Go ahead. Do your home-schooling thing. Of course, if you do that, you have to take the SAT, and you won't make it to college. But go ahead. You can do that. They will only allow you to get so much. And the rest of it, if you want the real prize, you play ball.

Look at this with political parties. You really think you can get elected? I did. I used to believe that a man could just go be who he is and then become the president of the United States. I don't believe that anymore. You can only go so far, and then the uber powerful along with their parties and their machinery step in.

Now, I hope we find that to be incorrect. I didn't believe in gatekeepers three years ago. I believe they believed they existed. I just believed you could get around them. I'm still looking for the way around them. I do believe there's a back door somewhere. We're going to short-circuit this system somehow or another. It's going to work. But because of the sheer willpower that it takes, how many Disneys are we missing? How many people have given up in our society because they believe the lie: You can't make it? How many Steve Jobs? How many teachers? How many great conservative thinkers? How many great actors that are conservative that just didn't make it? Couldn't make it. Stacked against them. How many great writers?

When we first started writing books, Rush Limbaugh was an anomaly. That's what they told us. What Rush Limbaugh did is an anomaly? Excuse me? He sold like 650 million books. What are you talking about? ‘Well, that's Rush Limbaugh.’ Yeah, he's not the only one who makes us good points, you know. ‘Yeah, well, Conservatives don't read.’ How many great conservative minds, how many great conservative professors have been lost because they've been ground up into little bits. Some have been humiliated. Quite honestly, how many of them became just raging alcoholics because their spirits were crushed?

We have the opportunity to be so much better than we are. There is a new day coming, a new dawn coming. There really is. I was listening to Pandora yesterday, and I'm hearing this group. And I'm like, ‘Wow, I like that song.’ I hear another group I had never heard. ‘Man, I like that, too.’ I'm a radio guy. I'm a broadcaster. I remember when the record companies used to come into the hallway and wait to meet with people like me. I remember being 18 and seeing the record producers come and wait in the hallway and beg the program director of WPGC in Washington, D.C., ‘Just give this song a chance.’ The graft that used to happen, the games that used to happen… that's the way the system worked. It was corrupt. Now, you can record something on your phone that is good enough and could be heard anywhere. Millennials don't. Baby boomers do. Really? Where is the individual in that?

I believe in the power of the individual. I believe there is a millennial living in America now who will change our world for the better. There is a millennial that is living in America right now that will change the landscape of technology. There is a millennial in America right now that will change the landscape of politics in America for the better. There is a millennial living in another country who will move to the United States and change the way we communicate with each other through a form of communication that we don't even understand yet. We don't even know of. There's a millennial living somewhere who will see America as a faded shining city on a hill and find the way to make it shine again because I believe one person changes the world.

Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, and, yes, Stalin and Hitler and Bin Laden – the struggle of good versus evil. It's the struggle of one individual, and their one struggle between good and evil that changes things. I choose to focus on the good, to believe in the good, to pray for the good, to expect the good, to demand the good because… I'm still lucky enough to believe that the vast majority of people are good. They're courageous. They're tireless. They're decent. They're loving. They fear God.

It's not the collective. Enough with the collective stereotypes. Believe in the individual. Which means if you do believe, like I do, it's up to you to be good. It's up to you to be decent. It is up to you to be loving. And then look for the ripples. It is the ripples that will save the world. Today, make some. Make just one ripple.”

Glenn: Pay attention to what the State Department's RADICAL reset is signaling

John McDonnell / Stringer | Getty Images

For years, the U.S. State Department operated on inertia—an institution locked into a cycle of caution, consensus, and risk aversion.

Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.

That has changed.

What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.

Under Secretary Rubio, the department isn’t just adjusting tactics. It’s undergoing a philosophical reset.

The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.

Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.

This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.

The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.

Regional partnerships are now framed by expectations, not entanglements.

Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.

In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.

The contrast is stark.

This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.

This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.

That alone is worth paying attention to.

Glenn: Why Memorial Day is not just another holiday

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

They wore the uniform so you could live free. This holiday, ask yourself if you're living in a way that honors that sacrifice — or cheapens it.

Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.

Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives.

While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.

Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:

The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.

This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.

Honor the fallen

For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.

Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.

So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.

This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.

We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.

This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.

They are the best of us.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump exposes Left’s habeas corpus hijack in border crisis

Chicago Tribune / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats accused the president of declaring war on civil rights. In reality, he’s defending habeas corpus while they drown it in delays and legal loopholes.

Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Betrayal of trust: Medicare insurers face lawsuit over kickback scheme

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.

The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.

If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.

The Kickback Conspiracy

Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.

Discrimination Against the Vulnerable

The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.

False Claims and the Pursuit of Justice

The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Glenn's Show Prep