Correcting the Healthcare Record on Hillary Clinton

The Context

In the midst of sorting out votes during the Iowa Caucus, Hillary Clinton declared herself a "progressive that gets things done." She also stated her position on healthcare, saying “I know that we can finish the job of universal health care coverage for every single man, woman and child.” As with most statements made by a Clinton, the particular choice of words matter. Glenn stated Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program that Hillary was in favor of a single-payer healthcare system, but that wasn't exactly what she said. Given her penchant for wordsmithing, he wanted to set the record straight.

Word Games

What did Hillary actually say about healthcare? Is she for a single-payer system? It all depends on what the definition of the word "is" is.

“So correction, if you will, and I think it's kind of a word game that we're playing. I said earlier today that in Hillary Clinton's acceptance --- or her Iowa speech --- she said that she was going for single-payer health care,” Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "What she said was she was going for universal health care for every single payer.”

Hillary Clinton's speech from Iowa in which she addresses healthcare around mark 4:00:

Reading Between the Lines

The Clintons, known for parsing words when facing scrutiny, artfully craft statements to confuse and allow for wiggle room. (Were those emails "marked" classified, Hillary?) She's trying to make herself appear less radical than Bernie Sanders by using the phrase "universal healthcare" rather than "single-payer," but it's all the same thing, really.

“Yeah, the difference is, in a single-payer, a true single-payer system, Glenn Beck, evil rich person gets his insurance from the government,” Co-host Stu Burguiere said. "The only reason there's any bother to even make this distinction here is because Sanders is trying to go to Hillary's left by saying single-payer, specifically. And she's trying to go to the sensible side and just say, 'No, we'll just pay for 90 percent of people. Not 100 percent. That's crazy.'"

Muddying the Waters

Does she mean she wants the government to pay for everyone’s healthcare or does she mean the feds should oversee a ‘privately run’ system? Her supporters have just enough room to defend her and just enough doubt to support whichever way she goes. Her masterfully crafted statements do plenty to muddy the waters.

Common Sense Bottom Line

The difference between "universal healthcare" and "single-payer" is negligible. Everyone knows what she means is a government-controlled system of healthcare. Hillary keeps saying she's an early 20th century progressives. That's code for socialist. And socialists want the government to control your healthcare.

Listen to the full segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So correction, if you will, and I think it's kind of a word game that we're playing. I said earlier today that in Hillary Clinton's acceptance -- or, her Iowa speech, she said that she was going for single-payer health care. What she said was she was going for universal health care for every single-payer.

STU: Yes. Every single man, woman, and child.

PAT: That's amazing. And it's the same thing. Virtually the same thing. It's very close to the same thing.

STU: Yeah, the difference is, in a single-payer, a true single-payer system, Glenn Beck, evil rich person gets his government -- his insurance from the government.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Hillary's idea, Glenn Beck will pay for his own insurance and for everyone else's as he gives his money to the government. So someone who can't afford it will get it from the government, where in a true single-payer, everyone gets it from the government. The bottom line is we pay for everyone who needs it in both instances.

JEFFY: Right. Plus, this is Hillary being allowed to move further left because of Bernie and say it out loud.

PAT: Didn't Obama say I'm for single-payer universal health care, and he said it in the same sentence? It seems like --

OBAMA: A single-player health care plan, a universal health care plan.

PAT: I thought he did.

GLENN: Yes. That's the same thing.

PAT: It's interchangeable. It's essentially the same thing.

STU: A lot of times, the terms are very interchangeable. The only reason there's any bother to even make this distinction here is because Sanders is trying to go to Hillary's left by saying single-payer specifically.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And she's trying to go to the sensible side and just saying, "No, we'll just pay for 90 percent of people. Not 100 percent. That's crazy." So, you know, she's trying to make the distinction that my idea is pragmatic and can get done, where Sanders, while it's a great idea, we'll never get there. And that's how Barack Obama sold Obamacare too.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: He said in that clip he said back in the day, I want to get a single-payer program. When he got in front of the country, he said, well, single-payer is too far. Maybe if I started a country, I'd go to single-payer. But we're not there. We need to work within our system to expand coverage and make things affordable.

I mean, in reality, they all want the same thing, they're just arguing how far they can get --

GLENN: What we said was going to happen, we said that they would -- they would start with this Barack Obamacare. Then they would collapse the medical system. Everything would become way too expensive. Then they would say they needed to move to single-payer because this wasn't working and they would expand. I believe we got to get the credit for being right on that one.

PAT: Again, we were right on every point of that Obamacare thing.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: And that was one of the many things we were right about.

GLENN: Right. I mean, they called us crazy. Conspiracy theorists. Haters. Everything else. Because we said that's what was going on.

PAT: Exactly what they're going for though.

GLENN: Exactly.

PAT: Exactly. And it's interesting to watch the Democrats because the sensible position Hillary is taking is like the difference between, well, I'm not Marxist, I'm like Vladimir Lenin. I'm not Karl Marx. I'm just Lenin. I'm just carrying out his plan. That's all I'm doing.

That's the difference between Sanders and Clinton. Is the same difference as between Marx and Lenin. One of them is -- one of them is the idea person, the other is just carrying out the ideas. Big deal.

GLENN: She keeps saying I'm an early 20th century progressives. They were all socialist.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: That said we don't want a revolution here. We just want to take it one step at a time. So when Bernie Sanders says, "You want something revolutionary?" She says no.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to supporters as Former U.S. president Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton look on during her caucus night event in the Olmsted Center at Drake University on February 1, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa. Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Martin O'Malley are competing in the Iowa Democratic caucus. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

For the past four years, the mainstream media has been covering for Biden, claiming that he is "fit for duty," despite the strong evidence to the contrary. But after the whole world saw just how "fit" Biden truly is during last night's disastrous debate, the illusion was completely shattered, and the media is scrambling to save face.

Glenn pointed out in his post-debate reaction on his radio show this morning that the mainstream media is in a panic. Biden's performance was so catastrophic that it seems like the Democrats might have to jump ship and find a new candidate. Meanwhile, the question is what to do with Biden between now and the election. Glenn pointed out that as commander-in-chief, Biden has the sole ability to respond to a nuclear threat to America, yet he can hardly complete a sentence.

People from across the political spectrum are reeling from this absolute disaster, weighing in on just how bad it was and making suggestions on how to move forward. We highlighted 10 of these responses below:

1. The Democratic Party is panicking 

2. Undecided voters lean away from Biden

3. Chip Roy calls on Kamala Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment

4. The Democrats look for a replacement 

5. The White House is called out on lies about Biden's health

6. Politico calls out Biden's "uneven" performance 

7. Joy Reid and Obama's crew panic over Biden's display of feebleness 

8. BU historian calls Biden debate 'worst performance by a candidate'

9. Van Jones calls Biden's debate performance 'painful'

10. Biden looked exactly like how conservatives claimed he looks 

​YOU made Target​ choose between profit and 'progress'

Scott Olson / Staff | Getty Images

Have you seen Target's newest pride month collection? Don't worry, you don't have to break your hard-won boycott streak to satisfy your morbid curiosity. Glenn took a look during a recent radio show. If you remember last year's display, you might be expecting horrors such as tuck-friendly bathing suits, chest binders for girls, and apparel made by a transgender Satan apologist. Fortunately, that's not what Glenn found. Instead, the collection was very tame, with one item being a charcuterie board with the phrase, "It's giving charcuterie" printed on it. So what happened? Did Target have a come-to-Jesus moment over the last year?

You. You are what happened.

The Target boycotts did exactly what they were supposed to do, they punched Target right in the wallet. According to the New York Post, Target lost a whopping TEN BILLION dollars in just ten days. You stood up for what you believed and Target had no choice but to listen. And this year's pride collection is proof that they heard you loud and clear.

"The inmates are now in charge of the asylum."

Now, this doesn't represent some change in the ethos of the company, but rather a desperate step back to protect their financial interests. The problem Target is now facing is that they don't have a whole lot of room to step back, as they have spent years cultivating a left-wing, progressive culture that really wants Target to take two steps forward instead. As Glenn said, "The inmates are now in charge of the asylum." These progressive activists within their company that they have pandered to for years don't take being told "no" very well. So when Target rolled back its pride collection, the internal backlash was immense.

Glenn's team was given access to leaked internal messaging within Target's Slack channel. The messages show the outcry of Target employees after Target announced they would be reducing the pride collection. Based on their reactions you would think they had just witnessed a national tragedy unfold. Some employees questioned if they could still work for Target after what had happened (remember, Target is still a VERY progressive company), and other employees discussed submitting ethics complaints. About a month after the internal firestorm, Target employees sent the following list of demands to leadership so that Target could atone:

  • An acknowledgment in writing, of the harm Target caused to the LGBTQ+ community.
  • A sincere apology.
  • To partner with prominent LGBTQ advocacy groups.
  • To immediately reinstate the Pride collection in full.
  • To donate to LGBTQ causes.
  • To implement sensitivity training for employees.
  • To cease all contributions to politicians and organizations that do not support the LGBTQ community.

Target has made a mistake.

By cultivating such a radical progressive community, they have placed themselves in a precarious position. On one side, there's the progressive monster they cultivated, with its ever-growing, ever-changing list of demands. On the other side, there are people like you—people who just want to shop without having to walk by transgender children's underwear. The more Target gives to the woke monster, the more they alienate their customers. Now Target is trapped—if they give in further to the woke mob, they'll lose billions of dollars, but if they don't, they'll be attacked from the inside.

So let Target serve as an example to other companies. Customers have a voice too, and when you stand up and use it, a great many things can happen.

Whatever happened to "do no harm?"

Last month, Glenn hosted a powerful Glenn TV special exposing malpractice and fudged consent standards among members in WPATH, the world's largest transgender health organization. Now that it's pride month, LGBTQ+ activists around the world are continuing their attempt to normalize life-altering transgender surgeries and hormone therapy as a legitimate option for minors experiencing gender confusion. However, as Glenn exposed in The Reckoning: Gender-Affirming Care, WPATH members are not only ideologically motivated to forego medical standards like "informed consent" to push transgender surgeries and hormone therapy on minors; they are financially incentivized to do so.

These "gender experts" are willing to bend the rules to do their dark work, and hospitals are turning a blind eye and rake in the cash. Here are 10 children's hospitals across the U.S. currently performing transgender procedures on minors:

1. Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago

We provide services including pubertal suppression, menstrual suppression, hormone therapy, and referrals for gender-affirming surgery.

Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago Gender Development Clinical Services page

2. Children’s Wisconsin

The most common care plans include ongoing psychological, emotional or social support. In some cases, our services may include reversible puberty-suppressing hormone therapy, gender-affirming hormone therapy and speech/voice training

Children's Wisconsin Gender Health Clinic page

3. Connecticut Children’s Hospital

The Division of Plastic Surgery at Connecticut Children’s offers surgical options for gender affirmation to individuals who have documented and persistent gender dysphoria. Gender incongruence occurs when a person’s sex assigned at birth does not correspond to the gender with which they identify. Gender affirmation operations are a group of surgical procedures that may be appropriate for transgender and gender diverse people to help affirm their gender identity.

Connecticut Children’s Hospital Gender Affirmation Surgery page

4. Doernbecher Children’s Hospital: Oregon Health and Science University

Our clinic accepts new patients through age 18. Our pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine doctors and psychologists specialize in providing team-based care for children and teens.

Doernbecher Children’s Hospital: Doernbecher Gender Services

5. Golisano Children’s Hospital; associated with the University of Rochester Medicine

Gender Health Services coordinates with other divisions and departments to provide personal comprehensive care for our youth and young adults through age 26.
-Cross-gender Hormone Therapy: Gender Health Services provides cross-gender hormone therapy. We consult as needed with Pediatric or Adult Endocrinology
-Pubertal Blockade
-Mental Health Assessment: Referrals and coordinated care
-Surgical Services: Referrals and coordination of care (as medically necessary)Gender-affirming Top -Surgery: Plastic Surgery or Breast Surgery
-Vocal Therapy: Speech Pathology

Golisano Children’s Hospital: Gender Health Services

6. NYU Langone’s Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital

We help children and their families understand and explore their identity, with the goal of helping them achieving a true and nuanced sense of self. We want children to understand and value themselves, so that they can develop the confidence to talk with others about their sexual orientation and gender identity.

NYU Langone’s Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital Gender & Sexuality Service page

7. Seattle Children’s Hospital

We accept new patients ages 9 to 17.75 at the time of referral who have already started puberty. Patients ages 17.75 and older and patients who have not yet started puberty will be directed to community resources. Our clinic primarily provides gender-affirming medical care (such as puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones).

Seattle Children’s Hospital Gender Clinic page

8. Stanford Medicine Children’s Health

This multidisciplinary clinic provides medical services for gender nonconforming youths and their families in one central location. The expert members of the Gender Clinic team consists of providers from pediatric endocrinology, adolescent medicine, pediatric urology and social services, supporting each child’s or adolescent’s gender identity. All our providers are members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Stanford Medicine Children’s Health Pediatric and Adolescent Gender Clinic page

9. St. Luke’s Children’s Hospital

DSD (Differences in sexual development) encompasses conditions in which a person is born with sexual and/or reproductive anatomy that is not consistent with typical definitions of male or female anatomy. This may include atypical or ambiguous genitalia, unusual chromosome patterns, or differences in internal reproductive or urinary organ development. Our team provides hormonal therapy, mental health evaluation, and surgical consultations for patients with DSD.

St. Luke's Children's Essence Clinic page

10. University of Illinois Hospital

We are here to work with you to determine how to best meet your goals of external gender presentation. We want you to feel and be as prepared as possible while you take these important steps towards surgery.

University of Illinois Hospital Gender Affirming Surgery page

Why is my name on this deep state-backed Ukraine 'disinformation watch list'?

Chris Williamson / Contributor, Janos Kummer / Stringer | Getty Images

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

On Thursday, Texty.org, a so-called independent media outlet with an editor-in-chief who has ties to the U.S. State Department, placed dozens of American politicians, activists, and media outlets — including Blaze Media and myself — on a list of those who have allegedly shared Russian disinformation and anti-Ukrainian statements. The outlet published an article titled, "Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the U.S. impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it."

We have a color revolution happening within our own country.

There are 75 individuals on the list with the nearly 400 entities that have opposed sending aid to Ukraine in its war against Russia. Blaze Media and I were mentioned on page 34 of a 47-page list.

The group admits it couldn’t establish direct, proven ties between most of the entities on the list and the Russian government or known Russian propagandists. Instead, it gathered “evidence” that these people and outlets have spread Russian disinformation by echoing key messages of Russian propaganda in their arguments for ending further aid to Ukraine.

Who exactly are the people behind Texty.org? Its cofounder Anatoly Bondarenko was involved in the "tech camp," a public diplomacy program established by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the State Department. The tech camp is very much part of the State Department’s efforts to foment “color revolutions” in other countries. They find “tech-savvy people” and show them how to build movements against their governments. That's what our State Department is doing. What a coincidence that the editor-in-chief and cofounder was trained by the State Department and has ties to USAID.

I did a "Glenn TV" special a few weeks ago about regime change. It's been the United States' policy for a very long time. We use covert CIA operations to go into foreign counties and influence policy, manipulate the foreign media, meddle with and topple governments. We never admit that we do these things. When asked, we say, "We didn't do that. What are you talking about?"

It begins with those in the government who want to overthrow a regime.

This strategy started with the Cold War, but nothing the CIA has pulled off comes even close to what its successor began doing: the United States government, including the CIA, NGOs, trade unions, and people like George Soros. They coordinate together to bring about color revolutions. The first one that was really successful was in the Middle East: the Arab Spring. I told my audience years ago that the Arab Spring had its roots in 20th-century communist revolutions. After the “Communist Manifesto” was written, there was the European spring, which was the communists’ attempt to overthrow all of Europe.

We've carried out color revolutions in the Middle East, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Ukraine is one of them. Here’s how they do it. The United States keeps its distance from the “dirty work” by going through NGOs and trade unions. They train and mobilize street movement — like the 2020 Black Lives Matter riots or the current pro-Palestinian protests. These movements are funded by the same people and seem to pop up every four years.

Their money and actions usually come at a time of massive civil unrest right before an election. There's some kind of government element at the top — whether it be the CIA, the State Department, or USAID — but ultimately the office of the president calls the shots.

It begins with those in the government who want to overthrow a regime, and then the operation is privatized to give it distance from those in the government who are in charge.

This is where NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy come in. The National Endowment for Democracy is composed of four different entities: the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity, and the Center for International Private Enterprise. Do you see what's happening here? It appears that the National Endowment for Democracy is composed of organizations from both sides of the aisle so it looks fair: Republican and Democrat, labor and private enterprise. But this is a bipartisan “cover story.”

Next on the food chain are the multibillion-dollar financiers and their organizations that partner in the entire operation. This is where George Soros comes in along with his organizations, the Open Society Foundations, and the Tides Foundation, which spread the message coming from the top: “Demonstrate in the streets!” They influence the media to report what the government wants to communicate to the masses.

This is the color revolution blueprint. We've done it many times, and I make the case that these same people are doing it here in America.

So, why am I on this list? I believe I'm on this list because I’m telling you exactly what’s happening.

We have a color revolution happening within our own country. Our government, NGOs, George Soros, and all the same actors used to initiate color revolutions abroad are now initiating a color revolution within the U.S.

This is what they've practiced in foreign nations, tested in 2020, and are doing right now ahead of the November presidential election. They might succeed this time because they can't have Donald Trump as president again. If he wins, you will have the government, the media, and the masses in street movements all saying that the election was illegitimate. This is how we've brought about regime change in foreign nations, and now it is being attempted on our own soil.