Greece and European Union reach deal that will tick off everyone in Greece

July 13, 2015

WRITER

Remember how the Greek people held a referendum just a few days ago to overwhelmingly reject the austerity measures presented by the European Union? Well, the two sides finally came to a deal over the weekend to avoid financial collapse - but it’s way worse for the Greek people than they were expecting. Pat and Stu had the story and reaction on radio.

Listen to the story in the opening minutes of today's podcast:

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

PAT: It's Pat and Stu in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 877-727-BECK. 877-727-BECK.

Imagine how pissed off you would be if you had a nationwide referendum. And you voted 61-38 against some sort of proposal, and everybody is celebrating and you think it's great, and a couple of days later, the opposite of what you voted for just happened after you promised that, no, no, I'm all about not doing this thing. If you tell me not to, we'll not do this thing. And then the president of your nation does that thing.

STU: Can we throw in more details?

PAT: Go ahead.

STU: Number one, the president was arguing that they should vote down the deal.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So he was on the side of no deal.

PAT: Right.

STU: Then the deal that they passed is not the deal that they rejected, but the deal that has actually gone through today is much, much worse than the deal that they just rejected. And the president was cheering on for them to reject a couple of days ago.

PAT: I mean, will this guy be the president of Greece tomorrow?

STU: Two months, tops.

PAT: It has to be soon, right?

STU: It has to go through their Congress. Then they can request new elections which is the weird thing that other countries do. Oh, it's time for new elections. Tomorrow! Run to the polls!

PAT: Yeah, the parliamentary system is weird.

STU: It's weird. I don't like it at all. Ours is better. Look, we're about to have a 17-person field where we'll have debates.

PAT: It's still better.

STU: Look, tomorrow, let's do new elections. I like that part of it here much better than there. Still, if you're going to have a referendum, one of these things that the president was secretly hoping that they would take the deal so he wouldn't have to do it himself. This is the last-ditch effort. If you're going to encourage people to reject the deal, they come out and reject it, then you'll face the negotiators within a week and then say, okay, we'll take terms that are far worse.

PAT: Yeah. Did you not understand what the European Union was telling you to begin with? Did you not get that the IMF was serious? Did you not understand that all your creditors wanted payment and they happened it now? And so if you can't give us that payment, then we'll have to have other measures to show us that you're serious about paying back this debt?

JEFFY: But my people said no.

PAT: Yeah. Well -- and not only that, he encouraged his people to say no.

STU: That's the weird part of it. If he was on the side of saying, we must take this deal. It's the only thing we can get --

PAT: That's one thing.

STU: They rejected it and make it worse. He would come back to the people and say, look, I told you we need to take that deal.

PAT: Right. That's not the way it went down.

STU: But he encouraged them to say no to it. So now they have -- parts of this deal is unbelievable, in which, again, with, they have to take it, right? I guess. They got themselves in this situation. I do not feel bad for Greece at all. This is a government problem. A problem of a corrupt government over a long period of time. A problem that is our problem, if we continue to do what we're doing. Thinking about things like giant union giveaways. Ridiculous pensions. Retiring at 52 years old. Creating 13 and 14th months to pay their friends more through the government. I mean, ridiculous corruption over a long period of time. I do not feel bad for them in the slightest. But part of this deal is that they have to take $50 billion of their stuff, their assets and put it in a fund for the rest of Europe to sell. They just get to take $50 billion of their stuff throw it in a fund and Germany auctions it off on e Bay. That's part of this deal.

PAT: That's amazing.

STU: Wow.

PAT: Yeah. On the streets, many ordinary Greeks were dumbfounded over the spectacular U-turn.

Well, yeah. It was the big vote, you know, that was proclaimed worldwide. Everyone knew the Greeks rejected this. All right. Now you'll get what's coming to you.

And instead of that, apparently Cypress (phonetic) had some sort of revelation in the meantime and thought, oh, my gosh, yeah, we -- wait. That was the wrong vote. So now we'll have to take what we can get, because otherwise our economy crumbles and people will be starving.

JEFFY: He played chicken and lost, right?

PAT: Yeah. It kind of seems that way. So, anyway, they will now have to accept the package that's much harsher than the one rejected to the tune of about 4 billion euros. So that's 6 billion dollars-ish.

STU: Five.

PAT: Or 5 billion. Yeah, it's a little lower than it was. And according to one 20-year-old, he said, I voted no. And, of course, this new proposal doesn't correspond to that no. Vasilis Seeka (phonetic), who is 20 and unemployed said, I feel like a slave. They do what they want, and we can't participate.

That's how you would feel after that vote, right?

STU: And also, just for media purposes, after you put a name and then 20 years old, you don't need to put unemployed in Greece. That's just assumed. We can just assume he's unemployed if he's 20 in Greece.

PAT: Is it 54 percent unemployment in Greece?

STU: It's over 50.

PAT: Yeah, it's massive unemployment for, you know, like 16 to 24-year-olds. Massive. Like hardly anybody has a job who wants one in that age range. I mean, it's pretty tough country-wide, but at least for the 50 and 55-year-olds, they have pensions that they can't get.

STU: Which is great.

PAT: Which is great. You know, when you're expecting that pension, at least you know that you can keep expecting it. It's never going to come, but you can keep expecting that all you want.

STU: That's always nice. At least you have that going on for you, which is nice.

PAT: Has the bank reopened today?

STU: Supposedly that will happen.

PAT: I would think so.

STU: Look, the euro, some of this talk is boring as anything. And I understand that. The interest, of course, here is, what does it mean here for us? And I think, A, you have the situation where when you build the European Union, you don't let countries out of it. Basically under any circumstances. Because you didn't build this thing to make trade easier. You didn't build this thing to compete with the United States. Although, that's all part of it. You built this thing for power. You built this thing to be able to dictate terms to countries that before you could not dictate terms to. So they're not going to let this thing fall apart. And that's the reason for my believing that they'll come up with a deal eventually. Which now they have. Which is at least patchwork as far as this negative effect goes for us. At least the assumption is, we have a couple of years at least before this thing rears its ugly head again. And, you know, the problems start popping up. Though, any of these countries, this could happen to at any time. Italy is in the situation. Spain is in the situation. Portugal is in the situation. They all have these massive problems. And if one of them does go sour, then it really could affect the markets. It could affect our lives in a real way. The thought is that this pushes it down the road yet again a little way.

PAT: And I guess we'll all take it. Isn't that what we're all hoping for? Just push it down the road a little bit? That's what we hope for in this country. That's what we continually get with the printing of a billion dollars a month. A trillion dollars a year.

We're just pushing things down the road. Yeah, just keep bringing the money. Then we'll keep the interest rate low, and then we'll just worry about it later on and hope that something good happens. You know, maybe we -- the mall of the USA and we start selling goods to the world and then we pay for the debt that way. Except for the fact that we don't make anything anymore, so there wouldn't be anything to put in the mall. So I don't know how you work your way out of the problem. I mean, we're in a serious situation as well. Not quite to the extent of Greece. Because our debt ratio to GDP is only around 90 percent. Right?

Ninety, 95 percent. There's is at 175 percent to 200. We had the figures last week or the week before. And it seems like it was 175 or 200 percent over GDP. That's not a good ratio.

STU: You know, we're on the same road.

PAT: We are.

STU: We can see the tail lights of Greece. It's a little bit in the distance, you know, but you could see it. And that's what's scary. There's a fundamental thing in this country I think that holds us back.

We were a country built on capitalism. We're a country built on a free market. On personal responsibility and all the things we talk about. And we constantly are upset at the idea that those things are going away. But in Greece, they never were. In countries like Greece and others, they never had those principles. There's not that fight. I think we talked about that book. Michael Louis' (phonetic) Boomerang. And in the book, he talks about the financial crisis. And just the experience of each individual country. It goes through Iceland, Greece, Ireland. All these different countries that had major collapses through the 2008 thing. They're fascinating stories and they all kind of happen for different reasons. But in one of the chapters, I can't remember which one it is, it talks about how the country doesn't have a Glenn Beck. They don't have a voice of opposition fighting to make sure these things don't happen. These countries don't have -- and we're obviously on the Glenn Beck Program here. But that's the one he specifically mentions by name. And Michael Louis is not a conservative author necessarily, if you know who he is, by any means. He's just a high-profile guy. He's written all sorts of big financial books. He wrote The Blindside, as well, if you know that movie. He's a great, great writer. One of my favorite writers.

But when he talks about that, it's a situation we take for granted here. There's always people, oh, my gosh, we have to stick to these principles. These principles are important. Other countries don't have that. They have, our culture is important. Or they have certain things that they fight for. But they don't fight for those sorts of principles. And even though we've gone down this road so far with terrible presidential choices, terrible senators, and terrible things we've done, we still have those principles that draw us a little bit back towards some sort of sanity and keeps us a little ahead of the rest of the world. That's not a lot to say for a country anymore. I'm not proud to say that's what we have. But at least it's something

PAT: The other thing that I think is going sort of unnoticed here is that Greece, you know, one of the cradles of democracy is still practicing direct democracy. And they just did with this referendum. And this is what democracy looks like. Okay. The people voted. And their leader just said, nah. That was cute. Nah. That's what democracy looks like especially when you have a country like Greece that's somewhat socialist. And then they mix in a little democracy. I mean, democracy has really become code word for socialism.

STU: Yeah, democracy might work a little bit better if you have a country like we're talking about, that has some principles of individual responsibility.

PAT: That would be nice.

STU: When you have a socialist country with how much can I give people for free.

PAT: Doesn't work.

STU: You have democracy, wow. By the way, this deal has a bunch of this in there, which is huge tax increases for the country. It's not going to help their economy.

PAT: Oh, this one does too?

STU: Yeah. These people will get beat up from this thing.

PAT: Wow, it just keeps getting better. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program with Pat and Stu next.

Featured Image: ATHENS, GREECE - JULY 13: A man sits alone with his thoughts as protesters gather outside the Greek parliament to demonstrate against austerity after an agreement for a third bailout with eurozone leaders on July 13, 2015 in Athens, Greece. The bailout is conditional on Greece passing agreed reforms in parliament by Wednesday which includes streamlining pensions and rasing more raise tax revenue. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.