Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Fundamental Transformation: Obama trying to change the definition of “individualism”

June 11, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Barack Obama promised his presidency would fundamentally transform the United States of America, and it sounds like he won’t stop until they are literally rewriting the dictionary. In a recent speech, President Obama redefined the American concept of “rugged individualism” - and it no longer involves “rugged” or “individualism”.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: So the president has come out with a fascinating new definition -- because that's really what we're into now, new definitions. We've redefined brave. We've redefined hate. We've redefined love. Let's we define -- because we have to change our words and our meanings. Let's redefine rugged individualism.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Before we go on, I just have to ask everybody here. Rugged individualism. How would you define that Jeff Fisher?

JEFFY: Strong by yourself.

PAT: The ability to take care of oneself, right? Come what may, you're independent. I'm going to make my own way. I'm going to make sure that whatever happens to me and mine, I'm going to take care of it.

JEFFY: And I don't need you.

PAT: I don't need you.

STU: This is the definition of individualism. The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant. Now, rugged to me in this particular context would indicate that it's not always going to be easy. It might be bumpy. It might be hard. It might be tough to get through it. But you do it anyway because you believe in self-reliance so much.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: You're tough. You're tough. Nothing will stop you from being self-reliant.

PAT: It certainly doesn't mean I'm depending on the government.

STU: No.

GLENN: Well, who would say that?

STU: Let me give you definition number two before you figure that out: A social theory -- this is for individualism -- a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. That is the actual definition of the word.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So we got it. Rugged. Come hell or high water. Individualism, I am going to fend for myself and I'm going to make it. Rugged individualism. Here's the president's definition.

OBAMA: The rugged individualism that defines America has always been bound by a shared set of values.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. I just want to say -- it's defined by a shared set of values. So we're already into the collective. It's defined by a shared --

PAT: Yeah, you're sharing it with everybody. My individualism is shared with everybody. My individualism is so collective that we all have it.

[laughter]

GLENN: I'm so independent that I'm tied to you in the same definition.

PAT: Yes.

OBAMA: That we're in this together.

PAT: We're in it together. Forget individualism. We're in it together.

GLENN: My individualism is a shared definition that we're all in it together.

[laughter]

OBAMA: That America is not a place where we simply turn away from the sick.

GLENN: Stop. Now, notice what he's done.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We're all in it together. Our rugged -- I'm going to redefine some words and some theories here for you, kiddoes. I'm going to take and I'm going to turn it upside down. But then once I do that, before you can say that doesn't make any sense, I'm going to throw in something that we all do share, we don't let people starve. We don't let people die on the street.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And if you want to define rugged individualism any other way, that means you'll let them die on the street.

PAT: That's what this guy does.

GLENN: That's what he's doing.

PAT: That's what he does all the time.

GLENN: That's how he makes you into someone who must be hated because he's redefining words. We all know that -- Webster, not the little black guy, the dictionary says -- Webster says rugged individualism is a determination to be able to make it on your own. Come hell or high water, you will make it on your own.

STU: Without anyone's help.

GLENN: Without anybody's help. That's the definition of that. He's changing the definition. And to be able to call you a bigot or a hater that just wants to have people die, he has to redefine the words "rugged individualism."

So when you say, wait a minute. No, I'm a Libertarian and I believe we can all make it. He then can go, well, see we -- we once had this shared idea that we don't let people starve in the street. Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. We were talking about what it means to be a rugged individual. It didn't mean I didn't help the person on the street who was dying, who maybe got their hand cut off by, oh, I don't know one of the new Islamic, you know, terrorists that you have working at the Department of Homeland Security. I don't know. Maybe that's what happened.

PAT: Rugged individualism has nothing to do with anybody starve to death. It has nothing to do with being poor. It has nothing to do --

GLENN: With the collective.

PAT: Any of this crap he's talking about.

GLENN: Right. It has nothing to do with the collective. It's who you are and how you make it. It doesn't mean that you make it at anybody else's expense. You're making it because you won't take a handout from anybody else. You don't need it. You will make it. It will make you stronger. You see somebody along the way that needs help. My Christianity, which I know he doesn't like, my Christianity tells me I have to help. My rugged individualism says, I don't need help. I'm going to do it. And I'm going to make it. And don't spend your time worrying about me. You worry about you.

Then when I get to somebody on the side of the street, my Christianity says, I got to help that person.

PAT: Yeah. It doesn't say I have to pay more taxes so the government can help that person. It says I have to.

STU: Individually.

PAT: Again, individually. So it's not conflicting with your rugged individualism.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: Everything he's saying conflicts with the definition he's supposedly defining.

GLENN: I --

PAT: I mean, this is madness. This is --

GLENN: I'd like to raise my hand. I'd like to raise my hand. Enough is enough. Enough is enough. I just can't go there anymore. I raise my hand to say enough of the insanity.

PAT: How is it that somebody in this audience doesn't raise their hand and say, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. You don't have any clothes on right now. You have no clothes.

GLENN: He wasn't wearing clothes?

PAT: No, he wasn't. He was completely naked.

GLENN: Wow. For a minute I thought you were referring to that fairytale, the emperor has no clothes, but he's --

PAT: No, I was really -- it wasn't a metaphor. He was actually naked. He was actually naked.

GLENN: He was actually naked. Wow. Okay.

PAT: It was weird. I don't know why he did that.

GLENN: But there's more.

OBAMA: Turn our backs on the tired. The poor. The huddled masses.

It is a place sustained by the idea, I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper. That we have an obligation to put --

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. That's not what sustains us. That's not what sustains us. I am my brother's keeper? All we would be is a hospital. That's all we would be.

PAT: And a broke one.

GLENN: And a broke one. No. It requires people to go out and create something.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That's what sustains us. What lifts us up and makes us a great nation is we also help people and love people. My gosh this guy doesn't get it. He's -- honestly, he has a third grade understanding of the United States of America.

PAT: I don't give him that much credit.

GLENN: In today's world. Today's third grade.

OBAMA: And see each other's common humanity.

GLENN: Still defining rugged individualism.

OBAMA: After decades of trying, after a year of sustained debate, we finally made health care reform a reality here in America.

PAT: All about health care. Rugged individualism is about socialized health care.

STU: Again, I give you a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control. It's actually in the --

GLENN: It's actually the exact opposite of the dictionary definition.

STU: Uh-huh. And there we are. As Jeffy said so many times, whatever they say, you should believe the opposite.

JEFFY: Because the opposite is true.

STU: And here it is.

GLENN: That is absolutely unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

PAT: I don't -- I really -- I mean, I know he does this all the time. How does he get away with it? There's nobody that's curious about --

GLENN: Okay. All right. So when you -- there's two things that have happened to our country. One, you teach people to -- you can't make a difference. Don't say anything. Don't cause a hassle. Just -- just leave it alone. It will pass. Okay? So there's the first reason why we don't say anything. Just don't -- we're not -- we're not those people. We never have been. We just all want to get along. Okay? So we have backed up and backed up and backed up. And we have been taught to back up. Then comes the second lesson. You better shut up or we'll destroy you. Now, there is a third lesson to this. And that is, I'm going to beat you nearly to death and the fourth lesson is, I'm going to beat you to death. But the first two lessons are, you don't make a difference. It's better just to leave it alone. Just be quiet. That one has been taught my whole life. The second lesson has just started in the last ten years. And that is, shut up, or I'll destroy you. The third lesson is coming soon. Shut up or I will beat you within an inch of your life. And all you have to do is beat a few people. So we don't say anything because we're like -- have you ever been around a dog that has been abused? You are around a dog who's been abused, you reach out to pet that dog, and they turn away. They put their head down. They see that hand coming, and they think they're going to get hit. We're close to being that dog. We're not there yet. But we're close to being that dog.

Many Americans are that dog. We've never been hit. Think we're cowards now? We've never been hit. You have people now who are being put in jail because they were a baker who wouldn't make -- in jail! Not a fine. Jail. You do that, and enough people will say, you know what, I don't want this hassle. I'm just going to go on with my life. I just want to be left alone. We cannot be those people. We cannot be those people. You know, Martin Luther King, by the time he got to -- the entire black population was like that dog who had been abused. They had been abused for 300 years. So every time they saw a white person come, and they, still, many places they still flinch, you're white, they flinch. That's how deep the abuse went. You can't claim anything close to that abuse.

We're just getting to the point to where we're being told, you don't make a difference, and shut up and sit down or I'll destroy you. But look at what happened. When Martin Luther King taught them, no, no, no. Stop arguing. Stop fighting with each other. Start standing together. Start being who you really are. You're good, decent, honorable people that just want a fair shake. You're not trying to hurt anybody else. You're not trying to put the whites out of business. You're not trying to kill them. You're trying to just be a neighbor. That's all you're trying to be, is just be a neighbor. Hey, neighbor. Hey, neighbor. That's it. How unreasonable is that? Stand together and don't flinch. If they hit you, don't hit back. And look what he changed.

We don't have that ground to make up. Only a few people have been imprisoned or thrown in jail, like the baker. We have not had -- we don't have most of our society being thrown in jail. We have not received 300 years of abuses.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

The REAL questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Democrats don't want the American people to know who they are voting for. It has been well over a month since Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala was hastily installed in his place. During that time, Kamala has not given a single interview.

The Democrats' intention is clear: they have spent the last month gaslighting the American left into believing that Kamala is their new "super-candidate." Now that they've taken the bait, they can allow Kamala to take a softball interview to combat accusations from the Right.

Kamala's first interview will be hosted by Dana Bash on CNN and is scheduled for 9:00 p.m. ET tonight. Kamala will be joined by her running mate, Tim Walz, for an unusual interview. Between the tag-team approach and the more-than-sympathetic interviewer, it's almost certain that this will not be a particularly substantial interview full of easy, soft-ball, questions.

The American people deserve to know who is on the ballot, and that means that they should be able to see how their candidates stand up against tough questions. Here are five questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight:

Will she build a border wall?

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

After years of bashing Trump for his proposed border wall, Kamala has suddenly changed her mind. During the DNC, Kamala pledged to support a bill that included money for a border wall and other border security measures. This change seems like a knee-jerk response to recent criticisms made about her abysmal performance as the "border czar." The question is: how genuine is it?

What is her stance on the Israel-Hamas war?

BASHAR TALEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has been mushy on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war so far. She said that she would support Israel while simultaneously expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. With mounting pro-Hamas support within the American left, just how far is Kamala willing to go?

How does she explain defending Biden against allegations that he was too old for office now that those allegations have proven true?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

For the last four years, Kamala and the entire mainstream media have vehemently defended President Biden's mental fitness, despite countless incidents that indicated otherwise. After Biden's senile performance at the June presidential debate, the truth couldn't be hidden any longer, and Kamala was quickly swapped into his place. Now that the cat's out of the bag, how does Kamala justify her lies to protect the incompetent president?

How does she plan on fixing the economy, and why hasn't she already done it?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has claimed that she could lower consumer prices starting on the first day of her administration, accompanied by other promises to fix the economy. So why the wait? If she knows how to fix the economy that is causing so many Americans to suffer, can't she do something right now as the Vice President? Why has the economy only gotten worse within her three-year tenure in the White House?

Why does she keep flipping on her policies? Where does it stop?

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

As mentioned above, Kamala has already changed her stance on a border wall, but it doesn't end there. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Kamala vowed to end fracking, a controversial method of drilling for oil, in the name of climate change. But now it seems her position has softened, with no mention of a fracking ban. Why does she keep changing her stance on these major policies? What other policies has she changed without any indication? Why has she so far failed to produce a clear campaign platform?