War on Women: Part III

"I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar," was one of the biggest hit songs in the 1970s from singer Helen Reddy. In the midst of a social upheaval that revolted against traditional female roles, it became the background anthem for protests against beauty pageants, bra burning demonstrations and the failed Equal Rights Amendment.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

[music]

GLENN: Such was the popular refrain from singer Helen Reddy, among others, in the '60s and '70s. I Am Woman was one of the biggest hits in 1971. For thousands of years, the roles of men and women had seemed to be pretty well defined and for the most part, generally accepted. Generally speaking, men were the hunter gatherers, and women were the nurturers. But society changed. And it took some time to adapt to that change. And as transitions can get, this one was occasionally rocky. There was a time in between when popular culture made it seem that the most important task a woman had was just to make a good cup of coffee for her man.

VOICE: Your coffee, sir.

VOICE: Thanks, beautiful.

VOICE: You're welcome.

VOICE: How can such a pretty wife make such bad coffee?

VOICE: I heard that.

VOICE: Judy, what brings you over?

VOICE: Oh, Mrs. Olson, Frank crabbed about my coffee again.

VOICE: Oh, coffee problems.

VOICE: It sure is. I can't make good coffee.

VOICE: Good coffee is no problem. You just use the coffee with better flavor, Folger's.

VOICE: Folger's coffee?

GLENN: And for the love of heaven, whatever you do, don't let the little lady drive.

VOICE: Depending on how you drive and your car's condition, you can get incredible mileage from the Goodyear custom-wide tread poly glass tire.

VOICE: I've got 32,000 miles on my tires.

VOICE: I've got 41,000 miles on my poly glass.

VOICE: But poly glass means more than mileage when your wife has to drive alone.

(music)

VOICE: When a woman is at the wheel, poly glass means more than mileage.

GLENN: In the midst of all the social upheaval over the roles of men and women, ads and attitudes like these just ignited the spark of social change that led to the feminist movement of the '60s and '70s. One of the most famous protests during the movement took place in Atlantic City. It happened during the Miss America Pageant in 1968.

VOICE: To the feminists, the annual television beauty pageants seemed a gross offense.

VOICE: Miss Illinois is Miss America.

(music)

VOICE: We are going to sing your song.

(music)

VOICE: Inside, one set of young women accepted the chauvinist baubles. Outside, others carried on with more consciousness raising.

GLENN: Women were everywhere, burning their bras and demanding equal rights.

VOICE: We threw bras and girdles and stockings, high high-heeled shoes and cosmetics into the trash can. The press loved it. And we learned very early on that the press liked crazy things, so let's use the press.

GLENN: As legendary and worldwide as the bra-burning event was, it is interesting that the actual bra burning never really happened.

VOICE: We didn't burn any bras. They would have happened if they had allowed us to have a fire.

VOICE: They struck the coverage they wanted, but at some risk to their reputation.

VOICE: For those who think that the Women's Liberation Movement is a joke, vaguely connected with burning bars and getting in the men-only bars, I disabuse you of that notion. It is about equal pay and equal opportunity in the job market.

GLENN: Protesters tossed their underwear into a large trash can, labeled The Freedom Trash Can. But without permits, the clothing was never burned. They're real rebels. The movement was definitely still making moves.

VOICE: In America, they started to burn their bras. And the women's movement had already begun. They thought, if they can do it, we have to do it in Holland.

GLENN: But the coverage wasn't always popular.

VOICE: Fifty years ago today, the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution gave women the right to vote. On this anniversary, a militant minority of women's liberationists was on the streets, across the country, to demand equal employment.

VOICE: It turned out, there really weren't a lot of would-be liberated women willing to stop their work for the day in New York. Early demonstrations tended to be small and the onlookers by no means were always sympathetic.

GLENN: It seemed that almost no one was opposed to women having equal opportunities for employment and compensation under equal circumstances. But with abortion on demand thrown in on top of it, along with many questions of equal access to all public bathroom facilities and the even more concerning prospect of women being drafted into the military service and placed on the front lines of battlefields, the ERA amendment became much, much tougher to sell to the American people.

William Buckley discussed some of these issues with ERA opponent Phyllis Schlafly.

VOICE: The state of Connecticut ratified the so-called Equal Rights Amendment. The proposed constitutional amendment passed overwhelmingly by the Senate and the House holds that, quote, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of sex.

That doesn't sound particularly subversive. And I would therefore like to begin by asking Mrs. Schlafly to state her principal objection to the ERA.

VOICE: Well, it's a very innocuous wording of the amendment that is the reason why many people didn't realize in the beginning what unfortunate consequences it would have. But fortunately, the amending process calls for a full-blown debate in the state legislatures around the country, and this is where we find out some of the things that were not originally realized by many people who voted for it. We find, as we look into the matter, that ERA won't give women anything which they haven't already got or have a way of getting. But, on the other hand, it will take away from women some of the most important rights and bits and exemptions we now have.

VOICE: What would be an example of that?

VOICE: Well, a great, glaring example on which there is full agreement between both the proponents and opponents is the matter of the draft. Women are exempt from the draft. Selective service as only young men of age 18 have to register. But the Equal Rights Amendment will positively make women subject to the draft and on an equal basis with men. Nor could you have a system whereby the women would get all the nice easy desk jobs and the men get all the fighting jobs. It would have to be equal across-the-board, in combat, on warships, and all up and down the line.

GLENN: Vice chairman Anne Scott.

VOICE: There's no question that if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed, that women would become subject to the draft. However, I think that we have a situation now where the draft is going by the boards. And furthermore, I think the question is not one of the rights of women here, but it is a question of the draft. Clearly, no sane parent would want to see either child, either a son or a daughter subject to the draft.

But if women are to be citizens and citizens are to be subject to the draft, then women should take the responsibilities as well as the rights of citizenship. It's not simply a question of being subject to the draft, it is also a question of denial of opportunity. There are many situations in which women could benefit from the draft. They already are in the service.

VOICE: And become a war hero.

VOICE: Why not?

GLENN: No matter how enlightened society was or wasn't during the 1970s, the idea of America's daughters being drafted into military service and placed on the front lines of a combat situation just didn't sit well for most Americans.

Despite some impressive and possibly unlikely supporter over the years, including the Republican president of the United States in 1975 --

VOICE: Women's liberation is truly the liberation of all people. Let 1975, international women's year, be the year that ERA is ratified.

GLENN: Obviously, 1975 was not that year. Even with Gerald Ford's endorsement. Nor was any other year.

Christmas has arrived early for mainstream media. They have their first sentencing of a major player in President Trump's inner circle. Yesterday, Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen was sentenced by a federal judge in Manhattan. How did it come to this and how did Cohen explain himself to the judge? We start there next…

President Trump's former attorney, 52-year-old Michael Cohen, is going to jail. Well, it will probably be one of those federal prison camps with a dorm that's more like a college campus. But he's going to be locked up. A federal judge sentenced him to three years in prison for financial crimes, and two months for lying to Congress. He also ordered Cohen to pay $2 million in financial penalties. The judge called Cohen's misdeeds a "veritable smorgasbord of criminal conduct."

RELATED: Michael Cohen's plea deal won't lessen Trump's support. Here's why.

The judge said:

As a lawyer, Mr. Cohen should have known better. While Mr. Cohen is taking steps to mitigate his criminal conduct by pleading guilty and volunteering useful information to prosecutors, that does not wipe the slate clean.

Cohen pled guilty in August to eight criminal charges in two different cases. One brought by special counsel Robert Muller for Cohen's lying to Congress about a potential Trump Tower project in Moscow. The second was for bank-fraud, tax, and campaign finance violations brought by federal prosecutors in New York.

President Trump said recently that Cohen has simply been lying to get a reduced sentence for crimes that have nothing to do with him. Cohen was very emotional as he apologized to the judge, saying:

It was my own weakness and a blind loyalty to this man that led me to choose a path of darkness over light. Time and time again I felt it was my duty to cover up his dirty deeds rather than to listen to my own inner voice and my moral compass.

The left thinks that Cohen's sentencing marks the beginning of the end for Trump's presidency. They may be ultimately disappointed in that regard. But this does intensify the long national nightmare of the Muller investigation that seems to have no end in sight.

How long until we follow in Europe's footsteps?

JAMES ARTHUR GEKIERE/AFP/Getty Images

Christmas should be a time of happiness and celebration the world over. But in Europe, it is now the season of terror. The sounds at Europe's famous Christmas Markets of "Merry Christmas!" and laughter are rapidly being replaced with the sounds of "Allahu Ackbar!" and gunfire. Two years ago ISIS attacked a Christmas Market in Berlin, killing twelve and injuring another forty-eight. And tragically, the sound of automatic gunfire and the chant of "Allahu Ackbar!" was heard at another Christmas Market in Europe yesterday afternoon… this time in France.

Two people are dead and thirteen are battling for their lives right now in Strasbourg, France. The attacker walked into the city's Christmas Market shortly after 8pm, shouted "Allahu Ackbar" and began shooting indiscriminately. He then proceeded to battle the police in four separate locations while he fled the scene. As of this moment, he still hasn't been caught. The city of Strasbourg is on full lockdown, and France's terror level has been elevated.

RELATED: Paris pandemonium: Here's what happens when people feel ignored

A man of Middle Eastern descent has been identified as the suspect. He was already on a terror watchlist and had been deported from Germany recently with twenty criminal convictions. He's well known in Islamist circles and was reportedly radicalized after spending time in prison. Apparently he was too radical for the Germans… but not for France.

What is it going to take for progressive governments like France to wake up to their failed policies? Nearly 300 people have been killed in terror attacks in France over the past three years. 300 in three years! But despite that, the French government refuses to address immigration, they continue their open border policy and - more importantly - they refuse to listen to their people when they try and tell them that they're scared to death over this issue. Instead they get a lecture on Islamophobia… "that's the real problem."

Outrage has replaced baseball as our national pastime.

This is one of the reasons why the Yellow Vests are tearing the country apart. The government refuses to listen to their fears on terrorism, unchecked immigration, open borders, the failing economy, high taxes and out of control spending. Wow... do these issues sound at all familiar? How many years behind France are we? Just listen to ourselves.

Outrage has replaced baseball as our national pastime. People have lost the ability to engage in peaceful protest. Street demonstrations have turned into street brawls. Have you seen the images from places like Portland lately? European governments are losing the social contract with their people. After years of broken promises and outright lies from Washington, how long before that happens here?