Glenn debunks Obama's claim mass shootings don't happen outside the U.S.

While in Paris for the climate change conference, President Obama commented on the Colorado Springs shooting that killed three people and injured nine others. The president made the claim that mass shootings don't happen in any other country.

Glenn delved into the absurd claim on radio Thursday.

"What about Paris, the town you're in, Mr. President, just a few weeks ago?" Glenn asked.

He then proceeded to list the countries where the most people have been killed in mass shootings per million. Below are the top eight. Note, the U.S. comes in 6th place.

1. Norway 15.3 per million

2. Finland 1.85 per million

3. Slovakia 1.47 per million

4. Israel 1.38

5. Switzerland 0.75

6. U.S. 0.72

7. Belgium 0.63

8. Netherlands 0.42

Listen to the audio from the radio program below. Start at 45:03.

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

While in Paris for the climate change conference, President Obama commented on the Colorado Springs shooting that killed three people and injured nine others. The president made the claim that mass shootings don't happen in any other country. What about Paris, the town you're in, Mr. President, just a few weeks ago?

I say this every time we have one of these mass shootings, this just happen in other countries. The president has made that statement in Paris. But are they true?

I have a chart. It shows that the US -- it -- it counts for its population size. So it's how many per million. How many people are killed in mass shootings per million.

When you look at it that way, number one, in mass shootings --

PAT: Of course, the United States of America.

GLENN: No, it's not number one. Actually Norway is number one. So it's Norway.

STU: Is there a state in America called Norway?

GLENN: No.

PAT: It's a city then. It's a capital city.

GLENN: No, it's the socialist country of Norway.

PAT: Oh. Okay. So Norway is number one. How many per million?

GLENN: 15.3.

PAT: Wow. That's high.

GLENN: Total rampage fatalities, 15.3. Total rampage shooting fatalities, 77. Total rampage shooting incidents, .19. So that's number one, Norway.

Number two --

PAT: This is where the US comes in.

GLENN: Finland. It would be the socialist country of Finland.

PAT: Is it really? Finland.

GLENN: Finland. Per million, 1.85.

STU: Norway has got quite a lead on that one.

PAT: Yeah. Jeez.

STU: That one incident with the guy who -- I mean, with the exception of Paris, was the worst one ever. Right? I mean, Paris is I guess now the worst one.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Slovakia is number three. 1.47 per million. Israel is number four at 1.38. Then Switzerland is five at .75.

PAT: Switzerland.

GLENN: Switzerland. Then the United States at .72. Then Belgium at .63. Then the Netherlands at .42.

PAT: Six. Wow.

GLENN: So a lot of these countries -- a lot of these countries are socialist. A lot of these countries also have wild gun control.

PAT: Gun control. Hmm.

STU: Yeah, the only exception to that really on that list is Switzerland. But everyone else, I mean, is pretty restrictive.

GLENN: Israel has a lot of guns, I think.

STU: I think Israel has fairly restrictive gun laws.

GLENN: They might. They might. They might. Yeah, but you can't really count Switzerland because Switzerland, you know, you got all those Palestinians there. You know, of course, there's going to be a rampage shooting there because the Israelis deserve it, really. They brought it on themselves for, you know, taking that homeland state that was given to them by the United Nations. So they kind of deserve it, don't you think?

So there's your -- there's your lie with the president. The president says, "This never happens." Yes, it does. And those are the hard facts, Mr. President.

STU: So what's the comeback to that? The comeback to that is, "Well, these are small countries with one big incident." Norway is the obvious one there. It's a smaller country. Has one big incident, blows those numbers out of proportion. That would be the argument against that.

Okay. So let's normalize the entire EU. Let's put it population versus population. Then what comes out? What comes out when you do that and you include the mass shootings, what you get is over a period of -- from 2002 to 2015, 352 casualties in the EU and 322 in the United States. So more casualties in the EU than the United States. And injuries, it's far worse. 933 injuries in the EU. 473 in the US.

JEFFY: That can't be though. Because what he said in France, "This doesn't happen in other countries."

PAT: Right. Unparalleled.

JEFFY: He changed the wording when he came back to the United States.

PAT: He did. He did.

JEFFY: And said just, "There's no other parallel." He threw "parallel" in there.

STU: He also said -- "With this much frequency" is his other one. And that may be very specific to this today, which shows that while there is a -- a higher incident of actual events when you normalize over population, there are more mass shootings, quote, unquote, in the US than there are in the EU. The EU versions are much worse. They're much more deadly.

GLENN: Yeah, but it doesn't have anything to do with guns.

STU: Maybe it has to do with people trying to defend themselves. Maybe it has to do with they have worse police forces in the EU. I don't know what their answer to that is. But you're talking about almost twice as many people die in each incident when it happens in the EU.

GLENN: Was I the only guy last night that was watching TV and when they said, "They're telling people know -- they're going house to house, and they're looking for another one of these -- another one of these perpetrators." And you had already seen two dead bodies in the street. You already knew that there were 17 people that were killed. So you knew what these people were capable of. And they said, "Stay in your home and lock your doors." Did anybody else think, I'm so glad I don't live in California, because if somebody told me, stay in my home, lock my doors, the first place I'd go is to my gun safe, and I get my freaking guns out and even my children would be holding guns. If they were in my neighborhood, I would be waiting inside. And if somebody comes into my house, I'm going to shoot you dead. But instead, you're in California, so you can't protect yourself.

Look at what -- just think of the insanity this is. Think of the mass delusion that is going on.

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Pat Gray discussed the Trump defense team's arguments in the Senate impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.

"This is different than what the Democrats were doing," Glenn said of the Trump team's impeachment defense. "We know the case of the Democrats, they just kept going over and over and over, for three days, the same stuff. The Republicans, at least on Saturday, did not ... and I thought it was really, really good."

Glenn added, "The president's defense was very compelling."

Watch the videos below to hear Glenn's top takeaways from the president's defense team:

Part 1: Why the president's defense is 'very compelling'

Part 2: Top takeaways from president's impeachment defense

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Americans are getting crushed by healthcare costs. In 2018 alone, we spent $3.6 trillion on healthcare — that's more than $11,000 per American and nearly a fifth of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It's on everyone's minds, which is why it has taken center stage in the Democratic party's primary. Of course, the solutions offered by the current crop of presidential candidates would do nothing to help alleviate that enormous spending. In fact, it would only add to it — what with Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All and Joe Biden's proposed ObamaCare expansion.

However, what also deserves attention in discussions about plans that increase the government's role in health care is how religious organizations would be affected. Faith-based hospitals and health care sharing ministries (HCSMs) play an important role in America, often serving as a critical provider and/or facilitator of payments for medical services in many states. If plans like Medicare for All were implemented, these groups would be at risk of going bankrupt or being severely curtailed due to the elimination of choice that comes with these proposals.

Instead of imposing a top-down and expensive health care system overhaul, faith-based providers and groups should be allowed to continue offering a variety of plans that work as high-quality, often cheaper alternatives. And more Americans should consider them.

Instead of imposing a top-down and expensive health care system overhaul, faith-based providers and groups should be allowed to continue offering a variety of plans that work as high-quality, often cheaper alternatives.

As mentioned, one such option is a health care sharing ministry. In this model, individuals contribute money into a pool managed by a religiously or ethically-affiliated organization, and costs for medical treatment are shared by people who adhere to that organization's belief system. Typically, applicants are required to sign a statement of faith in order to be accepted. It's basically like a subscription service: consumers pay a set amount of money into the ministry every month. Then, when they have a medical need or incident, they submit a claim to the ministry. Members whose claims are approved are reimbursed by the ministry from that pool of funds. Note, these ministries don't cover procedures they deem immoral.

Because providers are often getting paid in cash under this model — and typically within 90 days — patients are able to negotiate significant discounts, in some cases slicing procedures' costs to a fraction of the initial price. Insurance companies, by comparison, tend to not pay dollar for dollar on claims, and certainly not in cash. Additionally, insurance companies usually have onerous paperwork requirements, forcing doctors to spend half of their time on electronic health records and desk work. This increase in demand for administrative work is partly responsible for the United States leading the world in administrative costs in healthcare.

There are various types of HCSMs, each offering different benefits depending on what the individual needs — and a lot of savings on monthly plans. Take Christian Healthcare Ministries, for example. It's resulted in enormous savings for its members. Whereas the average healthcare plan can cost about $400 a month on the low end (with high deductibles), CHM plans can run between $78-172 a month for a single person. These kinds of plans are particularly great options for people who are relatively healthy and young, where the need for doctors and prescription drugs is less likely.

HCSMs have seen explosive growth in popularity recently. In 2014, there were only approximately 160,000 members. By 2018, membership ballooned to about 1 million HCSM members around the United States who have shared over $1 billion in medical expenses. But unfortunately, many people still feel locked into the traditional — and expensive — health care insurance model. HCSMs provide a way out, and, depending on their belief system, people should research them and see if there's one that best suit their needs. If more people deviate away from the traditional health care insurance market, insurance companies would be incentivized to adjust their pricing. That won't be possible, of course, if plans like Medicare for All are implemented.

Health care is one of life's biggest expenses, and voters are understandably desperate for a plan that cuts costs without compromising quality of care or access to it. Alternative options to health care insurance such as HCSMs are practical, free-market solutions that saves money. Americans should sift through these options before subscribing to plans that will only break the bank.

James Czerniawski is a Young Voices contributor. Follow him on Twitter @JamesCz19.

Bill O'Reilly: Adam Schiff is in 'wonderland' during the Senate impeachment trial

Image source: BlazeTV video screen save

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Friday, Bill O'Reilly gave his latest take on the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and explained why he thinks House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is like "Alice in Wonderland."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

youtu.be


Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Friday to discuss the latest developments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

According to Cruz, Thursday was a "very consequential day" in the otherwise tedious and redundant impeachment proceedings.

"Yesterday, the House managers effectively threw Joe Biden under the bus," Cruz said. "They doubled down on what they started doing on the first day of arguments, which was making their entire case ... based on the proposition that there was zero evidence to justify investigating Burisma [the Ukrainian natural gas company that paid then-Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, $50,000 a month to sit on the board]."

Cruz went on to explain that every time the Democrats, namely House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), rehash the "zero-evidence" argument, they open the door for Republicans to present the overwhelming evidence that contradicts those claims.

"That proposition, that there's zero evidence to investigate Burisma, is utterly and completely absurd. So, I'm looking forward to Saturday when the president's lawyers will begin presenting his case. Because what the Democrats have done, is they have opened the door to this. And I hope the president's lawyers will stand up and systematically lay out the case," Cruz said.

"They've been arguing that Hunter Biden is completely irrelevant to this case. Well, the House managers have now, through their arguments, made Hunter Biden not only relevant — he was always relevant — but critical now," he continued. "They built the entire case, like a house of cards, on the proposition that there was no reasonable basis to investigate Burisma. And that's just absurd."

The two also discussed Cruz's new podcast, "Verdict with Ted Cruz," which he records with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles each night following the Senate trial.

"Last night's podcast went through systematically ... all of the overwhelming evidence of corruption from Burisma that any president, not only had the authority to investigate, but the responsibility to investigate," Cruz said. "And that, ultimately, is why President Trump is going to be acquitted at the end of this process."

Watch the video below for more details:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.