If athletes really want to protest, here are some stories they could focus on...

December 10, 2014

Writer

Well, hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and TheBlaze. I’m Stu Burguiere, filling in for Glenn.

Finally, some big-name athletes are taking a stand. Lebron James, Kyrie Irving, and a few other NBA players wore “I can’t breathe” shirts during warm-ups last night, and in recent weeks, several players have given a nod to the “hands up, don’t shoot” mantra from Mike Brown protesters. I don’t know about you, but I’m all a tingle to see professional athletes finally make a political and social statement like that.

Sports had been one of the few remaining places I could escape from the craziness of our day-to-day, the insanity of the news, and whatever other struggles we have going on in our lives and just sit back and enjoy the show. But thankfully that’s over now, and we can look forward to the game and a message too, a lecture or a political statement. I can’t wait. And who wouldn’t want to get their political messages from people who specialize in bouncing and throwing balls?

Before you get all negative and say sports is finally ruined forever, think of the positives. Okay, there’s really none, but who knows, maybe some good will come of this trend. Since they’re concerned about making black lives matter, maybe we’ll see this very soon. I mean, it’s really possible, right? I mean, I can see this happening.

In New York City, black babies are more likely to be aborted than born. Over 31,000 were murdered, while only 25,000 were actually born. In the past 10 years, 16 million black babies have been murdered. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, that’s only three individuals, but if abortion were illegal, the black population by some estimates would be 36% larger. That’s more people than the population of every single U.S. state, except four: California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

Here are some other possibilities. What about this? You know, everyone loves the Constitution, right? Can’t you see Reggie Bush coming out with the Second Amendment shirt? Possible, right? Benghazi, I mean, people want to draw some attention. I haven’t seen a lot of the Benghazi shirts. I don’t think people want shirts with Hillary Clinton’s face on it. That might be the possible reason for that one.

How about this one, just a good old classic 'don’t tread on me'? That could happen too. Maybe the story of 22-year-old Chris Lane, who was murdered for simply being white will finally gain the notoriety it deserves. And I know I’m getting a little carried away with my expectations here, but perhaps this trend means we will finally see the day when someone has the courage to stand with the victims you never hear about, celebrity dudes who’ve been raped.

Shia LaBeouf, he held a days-long art exhibit where he sat in silence and let people come talk to him one on one. And during the “performance,” he was tragically raped. Since he wasn’t allowed to say anything, you know, for the art, he had to sit there and endure this rape. That’s a huge problem for celebrity men. The last thing a 20-something-year-old guy expects to deal with when they become famous are herds of gorgeous women who will do anything, literally anything, to hook up with them.

These men just want to focus on their careers and charitable endeavors and of course their art. Can you imagine having to fend off dozens of supermodels everywhere you went? It’s a horrible, horrible life, and it’s time someone takes a stand with Shia LaBeouf and all the male celebrity rape victims out there. I know I’m going to go to a field soon and see this, #Iammalecelebrityrape. We can only hope.

I am getting a little ahead of myself. Little baby steps, baby steps…we’ll take what we can get at this point. Maybe we can get someone to hold this sign up, you know? Oh yeah, “I’m not stoopid,” yeah, that’s kind of a reference to Jonathan Gruber, who was on Capitol Hill today for congressional hearings, and he was thoroughly grilled by Trey Gowdy and others and rightfully so.

He’s the ObamaCare architect who was caught on camera repeatedly bragging about the purposeful lack of transparency and relying on the stupidity of the American voter to get it passed. Remember this classic?

VIDEO
Gruber: …just like lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get anything to pass.

Stu: It was. Most of the mainstream media didn’t pay much attention, but it’s a pretty damning statement. Naturally, Obama and Democrats distanced themselves from him.

VIDEO
President Obama: I just heard about this. I get well briefed before I come out here. The fact that some advisor who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run.

Stu: He’s just a random advisor, barely even knew he existed. Nancy Pelosi said she didn’t even know who he was. Of course, the problem here is, remember, this is 2006, okay? 2006 Obama, he disagrees. He said he stole ideas liberally from Jonathan Gruber at a conference where he spoke with Jonathan Gruber. And look at Nancy Pelosi’s Gruber-induced schizophrenia.

VIDEO
Pelosi: I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill, so with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill.

Stu: So when he was an unknown MIT professor, they loved him. He was the toast of the town. He gave the credibility of MIT. In fact, he even made a comic book starring himself that explained how wonderful ObamaCare really is. Do we have the comic book, please? Thank you. Oh, here it is. I could get you a copy of this really cheap, really, really cheap.

Look at this. You flip through, you get all the superhero…look at them. There’s monsters, and monsters are going to scare you. There’s our hero, Jonathan Gruber. See, he’s the smart one with the glasses, and he’s talking to all the idiot police officers and the stupid ambulance drivers about how they don’t know anything about healthcare and all the dumb voters and the morons, and he’s the smart one telling us all the truth about healthcare.

Of course, he now admits he was lying the whole time. On the back cover, you have endorsements from John Kerry and of course Center for American Progress as well. Now that he’s been exposed as just an arrogant progressive jackwagon, they play dumb. But forget all the politics of it all. Money talks. How much did they think this guy was worth? His salary should give some clues as to whether he was more architect or some advisor we don’t even really know. Here was his answer on Capitol Hill today.

VIDEO
Rep. Jordan: I don’t care what you were informed, Mr. Gruber. I care about what I’m asking you is how much money did the taxpayers, state or federal, pay you to have you then lie to them? That’s what I want to know.
Gruber: Over this fiscal year and the previous fiscal years—
Rep. Jordan: No, total. I mean, look, look, this has been a five-year ordeal with this law. We want to know how much you got from the taxpayer and then made fun of them after you got the money and lied to them.
Gruber: I don’t recall the total.

Stu: Who would know? I mean, if people pay you millions of dollars, you’re going to know? The arrogance really was infuriating. He absolutely knows how much money they paid him, and Americans are absolutely owed an answer, but instead he goes crawling to his attorneys. That’s our money. Just man up and tell us.

Of course the reason goober Gruber didn’t want to reveal how much taxpayer money he received is because he got filthy rich—$400,000 from DHHS, 2 million from NIH, 1.74 million from the DOJ. The DOJ? What the hell is the DOJ paying this guy millions of dollars for, seriously? A hundred thousand dollars from the State Department, and then various states also paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars. All told, we paid this guy $5.9 million to bring us ObamaCare, among other fabulous projects.

Sounds like a high amount for “just some advisor,” but then again, the government has never been accused of frugality. They pay millions of dollars for toilets. Maybe they thought Gruber was a porta potty. I’m not sure. Let’s not forget, by the way, that ObamaCare is a complete and total failure. There are some 40 million uninsured in America. Seven million “allegedly” are enrolled in ObamaCare, but 4 of those 7 million lost the plans they were already having, they are ready paid for, and they liked, and they were told that they could keep. So that means this giant, massive government program designed to cover, I don’t know, 40 million people is covering about three, and we’re the stupid ones. What a waste.

Maybe that’s something we can look forward to seeing future athletes protest. I hope so. Back in a second.

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