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)

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