Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Events
Restoring the Covenant
More
AboutBooksCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2020 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Cecile Richards Gets Excited When Women Talk About Killing Their Babies

October 07, 2016
 Lori Hanes

Writer

The left once touted a trifecta as its mantra on abortion: safe, legal and rare. But things have changed.

"We have lost one of the three big things that the left used to preach about, which was safe, legal and rare. They no longer care about rare," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, recently stated that she gets excited hearing about how and why women choose to get an abortion:

RELATED: Real Men Are Pro-Life

For too many years, certainly for my generation, all issues about sex and sexuality were stigmatized. Abortion was, homosexuality was. And the exciting thing to me now is that young people are telling their stories and they are living out loud. More women are telling their abortion stories, and I told mine. I think once we get out of the shadows, and I think the LGBT movement has led the way in this, it normalizes what should be an open and honest conversation.

"You know, I get excited when people tell me their stories about killing people, too. Don't you? I always enjoy that," Co-host Pat Gray added.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these uncommon questions:

• Is abortion still a terrible decision women struggle with?

• Has intentionally dehumanizing fetuses led to more abortions?

• Why have women allowed abortion to become a common form of birth control?

• Can fetuses turn into Buicks or brussel sprouts?

• Does Cecil Richards care about human life?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

PAT: Oh, Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood gets excited when she hears about how and why women choose to get their abortions. That's great.

You know, I get excited when people tell me their stories about killing people too. Don't you? I always enjoy that.

STU: Well, there's an entire --

PAT: A lot of fun. A lot of fun.

STU: -- you know, billion dollar industry of horror movies. People like to -- they definitely like to engage.

PAT: That's true. That's very true.

STU: Violent video games are --

PAT: So, yeah. Call us and share your favorite murder story.

STU: Again, we have lost one of the three big things that the left used to preach about, which was safe, legal, and rare. They no longer care about rare.

PAT: At all.

STU: They want it to be safe, I guess. I mean, although, you see with Gosnell and others, it's not necessarily at the top of their list of interests.

They want it to be legal. That's the number one. They want it to be legal. And it seems like it's more like, kind of safe, legal, and encouraged is the new slogan.

Because now it is -- it's not about, well, this is a terrible decision, and women struggle with it. And -- that's not the pitch anymore. The pitch is, this is a wonderful thing to help our lives. You know, I wouldn't have been able to get the job I got. My -- who knows, I would have been in debt. Like they say these things as if they're the equivalent --

PAT: It would have been really inconvenient for me at the time.

STU: Yeah. I wouldn't have been able to deal with it. Well, look, it can be very difficult to deal with in certain circumstances.

PAT: Right. That's why there's adoption.

STU: There's other things to address that issue.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You know, but the idea that you're going to praise this, because why? Because I think it's -- they've realized that they're only going to get to a certain point by saying, "This is a really negative activity that we must allow in society." They have to turn it into, this is a very positive activity to make any further in the debate I guess.

PAT: And she says, the exciting thing to me now is that young people are telling their stories, and they're living out loud. More women are telling their abortion stories. And I told mine. I think once we get out of the shadows, and I think the LGBT movement has led the way on this, it normalizes what should be an open and honest conversation.

JEFFY: What.

PAT: And so now, yeah, that's the thing, to normalize abortion. And to make it just the most natural and wonderful thing you can do. We've already had open and honest conversations, at least from our standpoint we're honest about it. We're certainly open about it.

They're not honest about it. It would be nice if they would be honest about it and at least admit, it's human life they're talking about. And they won't. They won't do that.

JEFFY: So...

STU: It's kind of why at some level I respect people like her and the Sandra Fluke's of the world. It's like, at least they're admitting it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: They're saying -- I mean, they're not trying to couch this in a, well, look, I'm personally against it. And I would never say -- after six months, then I think it's bad. They're like, nah, eight seconds before birth, kill it.

PAT: Right. Right.

STU: And while I think that's abhorrent and terrible, at least they're being honest about it. It's very rare from someone on that side of the aisle to be honest about this issue.

PAT: True.

STU: And in some ways, it's nice to see. You wonder like, if America has an opportunity to go through an honest debate with one side of the aisle saying, "You know we should be able to kill this thing at any point. Maybe a few months after birth. I mean, if it's really annoying, crying all the time, colic-y, eh, let's pull the trigger." If you have one side of the aisle saying that and the other one saying, "Well, we think human life is kind of important to defend -- if we lose that battle, we deserve everything we get from it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We deserve a collapse of our entire society if that's one that can be lost.

PAT: Other than aborting Jeffy in his 644th trimester, you know, you can't disagree with what you just said any more. And you've got people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz who wouldn't even admit her own children were human before they were born. Remember that?

VOICE: You have three children, correct?

DEBBIE: I do.

VOICE: What are their ages?

DEBBIE: I have twin 16-year-olds and a 12-year-old.

VOICE: And in your opinion, were they human beings before they were born?

DEBBIE: You know, I believe that every woman has the right to make their own reproductive choices.

PAT: That's not the question.

VOICE: What did you believe about your children though?

DEBBIE: That I had the right to make my own reproductive choices, which I was glad -- a right which I was proud to have.

VOICE: So were they human beings? Just yes or no.

PAT: Well, one of them was. One of them was a Buick. One of them was a brussels sprout before it was born.

DEBBIE: They're human beings today. And I'm glad that I had an opportunity to make my own reproductive --

JEFFY: They're human beings today.

PAT: They're human beings today. I mean, that's just complete dishonesty.

JEFFY: We were amazed when that brussels sprout grew up to be a human.

PAT: Yeah, I couldn't believe it. Hey, I've got a brussels sprout inside my stomach, but let's see what happens. Maybe we eat it for dinner when it comes out. Then it turned out to be human. Imagine my surprise.

JEFFY: Amazing.

PAT: It's just -- it's so dishonest. It's --

STU: She will not give ground in her little argument.

PAT: And there's so many like her. And you're right, Cecile Richards, she doesn't care.

Featured Image: Cecile Richards speaks during the second day of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center, July 26, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo Credit: SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

His record 'speaks for itself': Jason Whitlock on why President Trump is gaining with black voters

Image source: Video screenshot

In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for OutKick.com, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.

Megyn Kelly: Media coverage of President Trump is ‘DISGUSTING’

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

WITCH HUNT: The left has TERRIFYING plans for Trump supporters if Biden wins

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

Glenn Beck: President Trump’s final debate performance was  'BRILLIANT' — here's why

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.