Levin Knows Trump Isn't Our Savior, He Just Had to Choose the Lesser of Two Evils

Editor's Note: The following is based on Glenn's monologue from September 7, 2016.

Our very good friend Mark Levin announced last night who he is voting for. I think it surprised some in his audience. It didn't surprise me. He's going to vote for Donald Trump. What will "Glenn Beck" say about that today? Let me tell you, right now.

This is the kind of conversation America should be having today. I disagree with Mark Levin, but we see this differently. I also see his position as completely reasonable. He's not taking responsibility, just like you're not going to take responsibility, for what Donald Trump does or doesn't say or do.

The problem for people who vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is when all of a sudden they take responsibility for everything. Like people who voted for Barack Obama, they defended anything and everything he did, regardless of right or wrong.

Look at Lawrence Jones who works for TheBlaze. He campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008. Then he saw what Obama was and thought, "Wait a minute. That's not what I was buying." And he was honest enough to back away and go, "No, no. That's not what I bought." Lawrence was reasonable, and he talked about the hatred on both sides.

Last night, the email, the Facebook and Twitter comments when Mark announced his decision --- oh, my gosh, the hatred for him and the hatred for me was at all-time levels. I got, "See, he's smart. You're a dummy."

So let me address this.

I have respect for Mark because he didn't have to say this. He could have just shut up. He didn't have to say this, but he believes in the American people, and he believes in his audience. And his audience is fair enough to accept his decision as his. He's being transparent. He's being real. And he's made a gun-to-his-head decision. He really is choosing the lesser of two evils. In his mind, he's thinking they're both bad, but which one is the least worse? That's completely different than this guy is our savior.

Jefferson and Adams feuded for years. Some of the things they said when running against each other were awful. Adams said, "If Jefferson gets in, your daughters aren't safe, they'll be raped, there will be heads on pikes in the streets and rivers of blood." They hated each other. They were good friends during the Revolution and Constitutional Convention, but when it came to policies when running against each other, it destroyed them.

In the end, they started writing letters to each other and they healed somewhat. They died on the same day --- July 4th, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Adam's last words were "Thomas Jefferson still survives."

They disagreed, and yet, we look at both of them as patriots. They argued and argued and argued --- over substance. One thought the other was going to take them back to the monarchy, and the other thought one was going to take us into bedlam. They wasted a lot of time and energy fighting for what they believed. But we remember both of them as patriots.

Jefferson, Thomas Paine and Washington also disagreed, and I think this is a more apt example.

Washington was a deep believer in faith, God and Divine Providence. He said, "With firm reliance on Divine Providence." Jefferson wasn't as spiritually connected as Washington. But Washington had been on the battlefield, coming back with bullet holes in his hat, bullet holes in his jacket, never being shot, never being wounded. He saw firsthand Divine Providence and the full hand of God. He was more apt to understand how you had to be good as a people to be able to win. He's the guy who came up with the merit badge and the Purple Heart, which was for doing something God would find pleasing and would bring favor upon our army.

Washington did not believe we were on a mission from God, so get out of our way. He believed in Divine Providence and following God so His favor would shine upon us. He believed soldiers had to go to church on Sunday, even during the war. There was no swearing, no cussing. He wanted soliders to read the Bible. He wanted them to do something virtuous or with merit that would bring the favor of God on our cause.

So Jefferson and Thomas Paine, who later on in life became a full-fledged atheist, they didn't see the world the same way as Washington. When the French Revolution happened, both Paine and Jefferson believed America should get involved. Because Paine was so disconnected from God and understanding a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, he didn't see a difference between our Revolution and the French Revolution. He said, "They're saying the same things."

Washington's point was, while they're saying the same things, they are not moved by God. They are not a people led by virtue, merit, honor, integrity and humility. And so he believed the French Revolution would end horribly.

Thomas Paine couldn't believe Washington, of all people, would betray the cause of the Revolution, saying the general would be a traitor. That's quite a charge to make to George Washington.

Paine went to France and wrote several pamphlets on the glories of the French Revolution, until they started beheading people. That's when he got it and said, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. We didn't do this. We didn't execute people. We didn't have guillotines. This is not the way the Revolution is supposed to go." That's when Robespierre said Paine had betrayed the Revolution, and Paine ended up in the Bastille.

Now, why do I bring this up? Because without Paine there would be no Declaration of Independence, no American Revolution. And without Thomas Paine, Washington could not have crossed the Delaware and won the war. Without Washington, we wouldn't have had a virtuous and decent military. It took both of those men to win. Even though they were deeply divided, they came together when it counted.

Coming together now, in my opinion, is not what counts. Coming together when the heat is really on, when one of these two is elected, that's when coming together and standing on principles matters.

I strongly disagree with Hannity, and I have from the very beginning, but Trump is a friend of his, and he trusts him. I don't. Mark stood for principles as long as he could, and now feels the only thing left to be of service to the republic is vote for Trump. And, as I've said since the nomination, I understand. I understand that people love Trump and feel that he speaks for them. But I also understand that many people have a real problem voting for him, but don't see any other option.

But there is a third option.

In the service of my country and because of what I believe about both of these people, Trump and Clinton, I find myself now as the only national radio talent to be standing firmly against both of them. We always knew we would be alone, we just didn't think it would happen this quickly. But we are now officially alone, standing for small government, equal rule of law, every jot and tittle of the Constitution, without anger or passion.

I'm not saying these things because I'm angry, stubborn, a sellout or a Clinton supporter --- far from it. I have warned about the Clintons since 1992. I know them inside and out. I know exactly who she is. But I also, for the last six years, have warned about the rise of fascism and totalitarianism. And I believe we are close to fascism, totalitarianism or some sort of oligarchy in both parties with both candidates. And I take my duty as a watchman on the tower seriously.

If you know where that phrase comes from, you know the blood of all who could hear the watchman's warning, if he didn't raise his alarm, that blood will be upon his head. If he raises the alarm and the people choose to ignore it, that's their prerogative. I have said this to you since 2005.

I have a grave responsibility at this time. You may not think so. I do.

If I'm wrong, believe me, I am relieved. It's not a popular position. It's been very hard on me and my family and my business. It isn't good for business. Because whomever wins, if I'm right, I'm the first one to lose. But this is the time to speak out because I believe both of these candidates will try to silence people who disagree with them.

If you believe differently than me, by voting the way you will, you don't lose your soul. But people like me, we honestly believe something too. We believe that bloodshed, rage and evil are being fostered by both of these candidates. If we vote for one of these two, with what we truly believe, we do lose our soul.

Will you give us the same respect, Trump supporters and Clinton supporters, that we will afford people who disagree with us, you and Mark Levin? Will you give us the same respect? Because there are millions of us who are listening right now.

I thought about this last night. With the exception of my marriage and my family, the only thing of value that I've ever done has always required me to walk alone for at least a while. But those are the only times that I feel were of value. As I heard Mark Levin's decision, I thought to myself, "Boy, you think you'd be accustomed to being alone. But, really you're not." You never get used to being alone, and I don't think you're supposed to get used to it.

George Washington was alone. Abe Lincoln was alone. Gandhi was alone. Bonhoeffer was alone. Martin Luther King was alone. And who stood on the other side? Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, King George III --- they were all surrounded by crowds.

If you feel alone, just know this, you're not. You're not. You're in very good company. As long as you're doing it for principles, you're in the best company.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Featured Image: Conservative talk-show host Mark Levin speaks during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2016 at National Harbor in Oxon Hill, Maryland, outside Washington, March 4, 2016. (Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN 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.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

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.