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.

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:


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.

The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, came up with "7 Pillars of Color Revolution," a list of seven steps needed to incite the type of revolution used to upend Eastern European countries like Ukraine and Georgia in the past two decades. On his TV special this week, Glenn Beck broke down the seven steps and showed how they're happening right now in America.

Here are McFaul's seven steps:

1. Semi-autocratic regime (not fully autocratic) – provides opportunity to call incumbent leader "fascist"

2. Appearance of unpopular president or incumbent leader

3. United and organized opposition – Antifa, BLM

4. Effective system to convince the public (well before the election) of voter fraud

5. Compliant media to push voter fraud narrative

6. Political opposition organization able to mobilize "thousands to millions in the streets"

7. Division among military and police


Glenn explained each "pillar," offering examples and evidence of how the Obama administration laid out the plan for an Eastern European style revolution in order to completely upend the American system.

Last month, McFaul made a obvious attempt to downplay his "color revolutions" plan with the following tweet:

Two weeks later, he appeared to celebrate step seven of his plan in this now-deleted tweet:



As Glenn explains in this clip, the Obama administration's "7 Pillars of Color Revolution" are all playing out – just weeks before President Donald Trump takes on Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the November election.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


Watch the full special "CIVIL WAR: The Way America Could End in 2020" here.

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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Start your free trial and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code BANTHIS.

Modern eugenics: Will Christians fight this deadly movement?

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash

Last month, without much fanfare, a new research paper disclosed that 94 percent of Belgian physicians support the killing of new-born babies after birth if they are diagnosed with a disability.

A shocking revelation indeed that did not receive the attention it demanded. Consider this along with parents who believe that if their unborn babies are pre-diagnosed with a disability, they would choose to abort their child. Upwards of 70 percent of mothers whose children are given a prenatal disability diagnosis, such as Down Syndrome, abort to avoid the possibility of being burdened with caring for a disabled child.

This disdain for the disabled hits close to home for me. In 1997, my family received a letter from Michael Schiavo, the husband of my sister, Terri Schiavo, informing us that he intended to petition a court to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.

For those who do not remember, in 1990, at the age of 26, Terri experienced a still-unexplained collapse while at home with Michael, who subsequently became her legal guardian. Terri required only love and care, food and water via feeding tube since she had difficulty swallowing as a result of her brain injury. Nonetheless, Michael's petition was successful, and Terri's life was intentionally ended in 2005 by depriving her of food and water, causing her to die from dehydration and starvation. It took almost two excruciating weeks.

Prior to my sister's predicament, the biases that existed towards persons with disabilities had been invisible to me. Since then, I have come to learn the dark history of deadly discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Indeed, some 20 years prior to Germany's T4 eugenics movement, where upwards of 200,000 German citizens were targeted and killed because of their physical or mental disability, the United States was experiencing its own eugenics movement.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas documented some of this history in his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Justice Thomas describes how eugenics became part of the academic curriculum being taught in upwards of 400 American universities and colleges.

It was not solely race that was the target of the U.S. eugenics movement. Eugenicists also targeted the institutionalized due to incurable illness, the physically and cognitively disabled, the elderly, and those with medical dependency.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which wiped out pro-life laws in nearly every state and opened the floodgates to abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Since then, 60 million children have been killed. Abortion as we know it today has become a vehicle for a modern-day eugenics program.

Since the Catholic Church was established, the Truth of Christ was the greatest shield against these types of attacks on the human person and the best weapon in the fight for equality and justice. Tragically, however, for several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by modernist clergy, creating disorder and confusion among the laity, perverting the teachings of the Church and pushing a reckless supposed “social justice" agenda.

My family witnessed this firsthand during Terri's case. Church teaching is clear: it is our moral obligation to provide care for the cognitively disabled like Terri. However, Bishop Robert Lynch, who was the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, during Terri's case, offered no support and was derelict in his duties during the fight for Terri's life.

Bishop Lynch had an obligation to use his position to protect Terri from the people trying to kill her and to uphold Church teaching. Indeed, it was not only the silence of Bishop Lynch but that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which also remained silent despite my family's pleas for help, that contributed to Terri being needlessly starved and dehydrated to death.

My family's experience, sadly, has turned out to be more of the rule than the exception. Consider what happened to Michael Hickson. Hickson was a 36-year-old, brain-injured person admitted to a Texas hospital after contracting COVID-19. Incredibly—and against the wishes of Michael's wife—the hospital decided not to treat Michael because they arbitrarily decided that his “quality of life" was “unacceptably low" due to his pre-existing disability. Michael died within a week once the decision not to treat him was imposed upon him despite the efforts of his wife to obtain basic care for her husband.

During my sister's case and our advocacy work with patients and their families, it would have been helpful to have a unified voice coming from our clergy consistently supporting the lives of our medically vulnerable. We desperately need to see faithful Catholic pastoral witness that confounds the expectations of the elite by pointing to Jesus Christ and the moral law.

A Church that appears more concerned with baptizing the latest social and political movements is a Church that may appear to be “relevant," but one that may also find itself swallowed up by the preoccupations of our time.

As Catholics, we know all too well the reluctance of priests to preach on issues of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other pro-life issues. We have heard that the Church cannot risk becoming too political.

At the same time, some within the Church are now openly supporting Black Lives Matter, an organization that openly declares itself hostile to the family, to moral norms as taught by the Church, and whose founders embrace the deadly ideology of Marxism.

For example, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, knelt in prayer with a cardboard sign asserting his support for this ideology.

Recently, during an online liturgy of the mass, Fr. Kenneth Boller at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York, led the congregation with what appears to sound like questions affirming the BLM agenda. Moreover, while reading these questions, pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, assumed victims of racial injustice, were placed on the altar of St. Francis Xavier Church, a place typically reserved for Saints of the Catholic Church.

Contrast these two stories with what happened in the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, where Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Church fell victim to the ire of Bishop Timothy Doherty. Fr. Rothrock used strong language in his weekly church bulletin criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and its organizers. Consequently, Bishop Doherty suspended Fr. Rothrock from public ministry.

In 1972, Pope Pius VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." It seems that too many of our clergy today are enjoying the smell.

I encourage all who are concerned about the human right to life and about Christ-centered reforms in our culture and our Church to raise your voices for pastoral leadership in every area of our shared lives as Christian people.

Bobby Schindler is a Senior Fellow with Americans United for Life, Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.