War on Women: Part I

March 21, 2017

WRITER

There was a Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Desert Storm. But what's the longest-running war in world history? If you believe the mainstream media and the progressive left, it's the War on Women --- and it's being waged exclusively by people on the right. Learn the truth about the beginning of the women's movement and key issues troubling feminist today --- reproductive rights and equal pay.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

GLENN: There was a Revolutionary War, the War of 1812. The Civil War. World War I and World War II. The Korean War. Vietnam War. The Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan. Desert Storm. But the longest-running war in the history of this planet is the War on Women.

I mean, if we're to believe the media and the left. And it's being waged exclusively by people like you, the right.

Some, including a number of women, are not even aware that there is a Republican War on Women. Actress Lisa Kudrow, for example.

VOICE: Do you feel that the Republican War on Women is still an important issue to voters?

VOICE: The Republican War on Women?

VOICE: That's what it says. Do you feel that the Republican War on Women is still an important issue to voters?

VOICE: There's a Republican War on Women?

VOICE: Yeah.

GLENN: The answer, Lisa, is no. There is not a Republican War on Women. So bless you, that even an actress in the leftist world of Hollywood hysteria, she was so very unaware of this nonsensical, non-issue. Yet, Bill Maher attempts to explain the concept to her.

VOICE: Well, you know, I think he's referring back to -- now, this is something the Republicans did improve upon, I must say. Back in 2010, they were the legitimate rape people.

VOICE: Oh, well.

VOICE: They could not stop talking about ladies' private parts.

GLENN: Consider that quote for just a second: Back in 2010, they were the legitimate rape people? Being legitimate rape people would certainly seem to imply that you've legitimately actually raped someone, wouldn't it?

Instead, Maher alleges that what made them legitimate rape people was that they could not stop talking about ladies' private parts. First of all, call me crazy, but I consider talking a separate and distinct issue from actually raping. In reality, what took place in 2010 was that two little known Republicans clumsily spoke about issues related to rape. And that was the sum total of Republicans being legitimate rape people.

But it's rhetoric like that that has created the hysteria surrounding this so-called War on Women. So nonsensical is this issue, that during the 2012 Republican primary debates, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos directed this bizarre question to Mitt Romney.

VOICE: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

VOICE: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising. States have a right to ban contraception -- I can't imagine a state banning contraception. I can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so. And if I were a governor of a state or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so -- and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so, you're asking, could it constitutionally be done? I'm going to ask for a constitutionalist here.

(laughter)

(applauding)

VOICE: I'm sure --

VOICE: Okay. Come on back.

VOICE: Do you believe that states have that right or not?

VOICE: George, I don't know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do, that no state wants to do and ask whether they can do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.

GLENN: All of this is not to say that there's never been issues concerning women's rights. Women have over time had cause for concern. Of course, we all know that. There was a time in this country when women couldn't even vote. However, that wasn't a Republican issue. That was a societal issue.

Commonly referred to as women's suffrage. The fight for women's right to vote began around 1830. It really heated up in the late 1800s and early 1900s. And the effort culminated in the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, in 1920. Tennessee was the last state needed to ratify the amendment, and it passed there by a single vote. The United States was one of the very first nations on the planet to recognize the right of women to vote.

As early as 1718 in the US, in Pennsylvania, married women were allowed to own and manage propagate in their own name during the incapacity of their own spouse. But it was a start. It may surprise some to know that in 1840, the republic of Texas allowed married women to own property in their own name. Period. The same thing applied in Maine and Maryland, with the provision that they couldn't control the land they owned.

All of which sounds ridiculous to us today, but 180 years ago, these were huge steps. Most of the rights obtained by women in the 1800s were obtained in the United States. By 1855, the University of Iowa became co-ed. Elsewhere in the world, these things were unheard of. When referring to things like abortion, progressives like to claim that since the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, it settled law, thus ending the debate for all time.

However, 100 years before abortion was settled law, the issue of a woman's right to vote also became settled law with the Supreme Court, ruling in 1874, that women had no right to vote.

In Missouri, a woman named Virginia Minor decided that it was definitely time for her and her fellow women to vote. She sued for the right. And the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided in Minor Versus Happersett, that Missouri law limiting the right to vote to male citizens is constitutional.

The court rejected the claim by Minor that state law deprives her of one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship in violation of the 14th Amendment. Amazingly, the court ruled that while women are people under the 14th Amendment, they are in a special category of nonvoting people. And states may grant or deny them the right to vote. So, really, let's stop with the Supreme Court settled law.

Since 1920, the front lines of this war have often involved contraception and abortion. Supposedly fighting for the life of an unborn baby is exactly denying women their reproductive rights. When, in fact, the protection of the life inside the womb is actually ensuring the completion of that reproductive right.

In addition, it is safe to assume that just over half of the lives saved by not aborting babies would one day grow up to be women.

In 2012, Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke testified to Congress about the hardships faced by female students over contraception.

VOICE: Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and just powerless she felt, when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time the contraception was not covered on her insurance. And she had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice, but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into her budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage faced this same choice.

GLENN: It cost $3,000 for birth control while attending law school?

I have to be frank with you, that's either an awful lot of sex, or you're buying your birth control devices at Tiffany's. First of all, to believe that the United States government should have any role whatsoever in assisting Americans to have sexual relationships is preposterous. It's not just unconstitutional, it's unthinkable. And second, even without any government involvement or insurance company contributions, birth control can be obtained incredibly cheaply, and in many cases, absolutely free.

Over the years, the War on Women has become a charged political flash point.

VOICE: Imagining paying 20 percent more for a cup of coffee just because you're a woman.

So why does Congress think it's okay that women get paid 20 percent less than a man for doing the same job? I'll fight for pay equity, to protect Planned Parenthood, choice for women, and expand paid and family leave.

Now, some politicians will belittle this as a woman's agenda, more proof that we just need more women in Congress. I'm Kathleen Matthews, and I approve this message.

GLENN: The fact that women earn 79 cents for every dollar that a man makes is continually cited. But even the Washington Post has attempted to dispel this falsehood. They've written about this every year since 2012 and most recently given the claim the dreaded two Pinocchios. There's a multitude of factors to consider, one of them is that the average man has more experience in the workplace than the average woman. And experience is one factor that plays a big role in determining pay. The Washington Post also notes that women tend to leave the work force for periods to raise children, to seek jobs that may have more flexible hours, but lower pay, and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

By the way, BLS data shows that women who have never married have virtually no wage gap.

In 2011, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages, but greater benefits, more flexible parental leave, for instance. Excluding such fringe benefits from the calculation would exaggerate the wage disparity.

In 2013, in an article from The Daily Beast, citing a Georgetown University survey on economic value of different college majors, it showed that nine out of the ten most remunerative such as petroleum and aerospace engineering were dominated by men. While nine of the ten least paying majors, such as social work and early childhood education were dominated by women. Again, when comparing similar education, experience, skill level, women earn about the same as men. And in some industries, slightly more.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Will this SAVE America’s children? SCOTUS upholds trans ban in red states

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.