HILLARY: Despite all the challenges that we face, I remain convinced that, yes, the future is female. Just look at the amazing energy we saw last month as women organized a March that galvanized millions of people all over our country and across the world.
GLENN: So which is it? Is there a war on women? Or is the future female? And what exactly does the future as female mean?
Hillary Clinton and others have expended a lot of time and energy selling the war on women. So this new phrase would seem a little out of step with that effort. But it's important to note that this new phrase and effort comes complete with another attempt to pass the E.R.A. the equal rights amendment. The initial effort to get the E.R.A. added to the U.S. constitution never happened. But there are many that would say it wasn't necessary in the first place.
>> If the equal rights amendment passes, we would have no choice. Women would be drafted and forced into combat.
>> And the president is staunchly against it. The club begins a new era. That's era not E.R.A. E.R.A. supporters have a tough time keeping the debate focused on what they see as E.R.A.'s main goal. Economic equality for women who in 1982 earn 59 cents to every man's dollar.
>> As a registered nurse, Carol makes less than men who fix cars, drive buses, or trim trees. That's why Carol wants the equal rights amendment ratified.
GLENN: There were several factors that wound up dooming the movement. First of all, there were already laws on the books that guaranteed women equal rights. In certain circumstances, such as when marriages break up, a case could be made that women's rights were and are superior to men's. Yet the perception on many is that there's an ongoing war on women and women are faring poorly on it.
>> What I would say to women who say there's already equality in our country, is look at our lives. Pregnancy discrimination.
GLENN: By all, please, let's truly open our eyes and look at each of those issues. The never-ending claim of those who are supposedly fighting for women's rights is that women make anywhere from 78 to 87 cents for every dollar a man makes. In fact, the 1982 news report claimed it was just 59 cents on every dollar. If we indeed are going to open our eyes to this issue, then we will find that even the liberal Washington Post has debunked this faulty claim every year since 2012, calling it false.
Study after study has found that when comparing similar experience, education, skill level, and commitment to job length of women and men, there is virtually no gender disparity in pay. None. In fact, in 147 America's largest 150 cities, young women make 8 percent more than men. All right. What about violence against women? Huge increase of rape in America. We're told now that things have gotten so bad that one out of every five women will be raped on a American College campus. If accurate, that would be a higher perjury of rape than what occurred during the Rwandian genocide.
The good news is it's not accurate. It's an outrageous falsehood. Sexual assaults in the United States have actually plummeted since the mid-1990s, falling by nearly 60 percent. Domestic violence is down 63 percent and partner violence has dropped by a whopping 72 percent. As for pregnancy discrimination, I'm not even sure what that is, quite frankly. In general, reproductive rights and pregnancy discrimination are nothing more than euphemisms for abortion on demand. It was about these reproductive rights that a law student Sandra Fluke testified a few years ago.
>> Contraception as you know can cost a woman $3,000 during law school.
GLENN: $3,000? Condoms are like 20 cents a piece. That is -- I mean, if you want to do the math, about 15,000 sexual encounters. Law school generally takes three schools to complete. To pull off 5,000 encounters a year, a woman would have to average almost 14 sexual encounters every day. So let's say 15 on a good day and maybe just 13 on a slow hookup day. Even on the days where you can't fulfill your normal allotment of hookups on tinder, that doesn't leave you a lot of time to study case law.
Now, for those who like to scream about the war on women, nothing gets them more angry than standing in the way of a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. The fact is nothing fits the description of war on women better than the actual killing of female babies. If pro-life advocates had their way, there would be 52 million more people on earth today than there are. Slightly over half of these would be women living, breathing, life experiencing women. Take a moment and hear them roar.
If pregnancy discrimination is really about benefits available for female employees, current U.S. law dictates that a parent, nearly always the mother, can take 12 weeks of leave from her job. Some employers offered paid leave. For others, it's unpaid. But almost exclusively it is women that take advantage of that benefit. Still, it's often claimed that the U.S. has the worst pregnancy benefit of any industrialized country on earth.
However, in a nation built on liberty and person responsibility, it's ludicrous to believe that the government would or should force employers to pay women who leave their jobs for three months, regardless of the reason. It's even more full hearty to expect that in a nation built on liberty that the government would or should impose maternity leave taxes on others. On the childless, on the single adults, on the elderly, on anyone other than those who have chosen to start their family to provide the benefits to the mothers leaving their jobs.
In the 1950s, only 19 percent of mothers with young children worked outside of the home. 81 percent of mothers stayed at home with their kids. The 1960s brought about a sexual and social revolution to the United States and to the American family. Discontented women like Betty began telling moms that they couldn't be fulfilled by raising a family that, in fact, something was wrong with them if that's all they did. Women, stay at homes suddenly under siege for not wanting to be more. They could have it all. But not by raising their family. They had to leave their family and enter the corporate world.
It's truly ironic to note that even as women were being encouraged to leave their homes and enter the world of corporate America, the same feminist movement as with so many other movements at the time quickly became mixed with the need for other women to do something outside the home, the anticorporate message of Marxism was also added to this mixture.
>> How did you account for women subordination? What was your opinion why women were suppressed?
>> We thought it was a mixture of men in capitalism. It seemed to me if you were going to change women's position, you needed to change the society.
GLENN: So somehow doing more than changing diapers became intermingled with Marxism.
>> I was in those small consciousness raising groups. But first with my characteristic arrogance I thought I was in them because I was suppressed. But because they needed real politics. They needed an economic analysis. And thank the goddess they got to me before I got to them.
>> I was in a group which was rather swaty group, actually, because we wanted to read about anthropology, and I had the idea that somehow anthropology provided some mystery key. Anyway, we all sat down and read angles. So we read things and discussed them, and then we would have these heart-rendering sessions about saying we're not a proper consciousness-group like the Americans. We need to talk more personally.
GLENN: So as with many movements in the 1960s and '70s, Marxism and radicalism poisoned the direction that this movement would take. What may have started out as a way for women to discover new talents that they never knew they had, and to spread their wings to fly a little, morphed into yet another way for radicals to infiltrate American society.
For those radicals, this movement had the added benefit of striking at the very foundation of American life. The American family. Whereas in the 1950s, 81 percent of mothers stayed home with children. By 2000, that number had dwindled to 23 percent. And in the meantime with no one, no mother or father in the home full-time, nearly every aspect of American life has suffered as a result.
But there is a silver lining in the story. In the recent years, the downward trend of mothers choosing to work inside the home has been reverse. As of the latest year that statistics are available, 29 percent of American mothers with children have chosen to stay at home and raise their young families. It just may be that a significant number of American parents are realizing that there is a war being waged in this country. And it is a war on children. And that someone needs to fight the battle in the home.
Speeches were careful, strategies were diluted by committees, and action was often defined by what couldn’t be done. The language was always the same: "nuance," "complexity," "stakeholders." Rarely was it about results.
That has changed.
What’s come out of the State Department in the last hundred days is a complete departure—not just in tone, but in structure.
The most telling shift is this: the department is no longer preoccupied with managing decline or defending abstractions. It’s operating from the premise that U.S. foreign policy must serve actual national interests, not vague global norms or ideological missions.
Look at the key decisions. The Global Engagement Center—an office that claimed to combat disinformation but increasingly acted as an internal censorship tool—is gone. Not repurposed. Not renamed. Eliminated. Aid programs that masked themselves as diplomacy while undermining core U.S. positions have been cut. Contracts to NGOs with open hostility toward U.S. policy goals? Revoked.
This isn’t cosmetic. It’s structural.
The department’s reorganization is consolidating power downward—removing bureaucratic silos, emphasizing merit over ideology, and restoring clarity to diplomatic goals. This isn’t about optics. It’s about removing friction between strategy and implementation. On immigration and border enforcement, there’s now a foreign policy posture that treats visa privileges as exactly that—privileges, not entitlements. Visa holders who break laws or support terrorist groups lose their status. Period. No press conference required. Just enforcement.
Countries that allow mass illegal migration into the U.S. are being held accountable. Agreements are being structured around reciprocity. When those agreements are ignored, consequences follow. China’s influence in the Western Hemisphere, long treated as inevitable, has been directly challenged. Beijing’s role in Panama, particularly regarding the canal, has been dismantled through diplomacy backed by leverage, not lectures. That wasn’t done through press statements—it required statecraft, pressure, and the willingness to say no.
In Europe, there’s been a reframing of NATO obligations. Not as symbolic unity, but as measurable responsibility. The benchmark is no longer two percent. The conversation is now five. That changes the nature of the alliance. In Africa, the posture is shifting from dependency to commercial engagement. Trade, not aid. Access, not assistance. Diplomacy with terms, not with guilt.
This isn’t a matter of tone or branding. This is a systemic shift away from a model that rewarded process over outcomes, toward one that is rediscovering the purpose of diplomacy: to secure advantage, resolve conflict, and protect national interests.
This recalibration will not be popular in foreign capitals used to ambiguity, or in institutions comfortable with drift. It’s also not universally admirable. It’s direct. It’s unambiguous. And it signals something rare in modern American foreign policy: conviction.
That alone is worth paying attention to.
Your son has been a Marine for what feels like an eternity. Only those who have watched their children deploy into war zones can truly understand why time seems to freeze in worry. What begins as concern turns to panic, then helplessness. You live suspended in a silent winter, where days blur and dread becomes your constant companion.
Then, in an instant, it happens. What you don’t know yet is that your child — your most precious gift — fell in combat 60 seconds ago.
While you go about your day, unaware, military protocol kicks into motion. Notification must happen within eight hours. Officers are dispatched. A chaplain joins them. A medic may accompany them in case the grief is too much to bear.
Three figures arrive at your door. One asks your name. Then, by protocol, they ask to enter your home. You already know what’s coming. You sit down. He looks you in the eye and says:
The commandant of the Marine Corps has entrusted me to express his deep regret that your son John was killed in action on Friday, March 28. The commandant and the United States Marine Corps extend their deepest sympathy to you and your family in your loss.
This moment has played out thousands of times across American soil. In 2003 alone — just two years after 9/11 — 312 families endured it. In 2007, 847 American service members died in combat. In 2008, 352. In 2009, 346. The list goes on. And with every name, a family became a Gold Star family.
For most Americans, Memorial Day means backyard barbecues, family gatherings, maybe a trip to the lake or a sweet Airbnb. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying these things. But we must never forget why we can.
Ask any veteran who lived when others did not, and you’ll understand: Memorial Day is not just another holiday. It is a solemn day set apart for reverence.
So this weekend, reach out to a Gold Star family. Acknowledge their pain. Ask about their son or daughter. Let them know they’re not alone.
This is a day for sacred remembrance, for honoring those who laid down their lives — not for accolades but for love of country and the preservation of liberty. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).
They died for the Constitution, for our shared American ideals, and the worst thing we could do now would be to betray those ideals in a spirit of rage or division.
We cannot dishonor their sacrifice by abandoning the very principles they died to protect — equal justice, the rule of law, the enduring promise of liberty.
This Memorial Day, let us remember the fallen. Let us honor their families. Let us recommit ourselves to the cause they gave everything for: the American way of life.
They are the best of us.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
Editor's note: This article is sponsored by Chapter.
The U.S. government has filed a major lawsuit under the False Claims Act, targeting some of the biggest names in health insurance—Aetna, Elevance Health (formerly Anthem), and Humana—along with top insurance brokers eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote. The allegation? From 2016 to at least 2021, these companies funneled hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to brokers to steer seniors into their Medicare Advantage plans.
If the allegations are true, it means many Americans may have been steered into Medicare Advantage plans that weren’t necessarily the best fit for their needs—not because the plans were better, but because brokers were incentivized by illegal kickbacks.
Navigating Medicare Advantage’s maze of plan options is daunting, so beneficiaries rely on brokers like eHealth, GoHealth, and SelectQuote, who claim to be unbiased guides. But from 2016 to 2021, insurers Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health allegedly paid brokers millions in kickbacks to favor their plans, regardless of quality. Disguised as “co-op” or “marketing” deals, these payments were tied to enrollment targets. Internal emails revealed executives knew this violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, with one eHealth leader joking that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would miss a $15 million Humana deal for minimal enrollments. Brokers used call routing to prioritize high-paying insurers, betraying beneficiaries’ trust.
The scheme wasn’t just about profits—it targeted vulnerable beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage must accept all eligible enrollees, including disabled people under 65. Yet Aetna and Humana allegedly pressured brokers to limit their enrollment, as these beneficiaries were deemed to be less profitable. Brokers complied, rejecting referrals and filtering calls to favor healthier enrollees, incentivized by bonuses. This violated federal anti-discrimination laws and CMS contracts, undermining the founding principles of Medicare by discriminating against the very people it was created to aid.
The schemes led to false claims to CMS, with insurers certifying enrollments as “valid” despite kickbacks and discrimination. The government paid billions, unaware of the fraud. Examples include Humana’s $12,477 for a 2016 enrollment and Aetna’s $79,047 for a 2020 case. On May 1, 2025, the U.S. filed suit, seeking treble damages and penalties under the False Claims Act. Aetna and others deny the allegations, per May 2025 reports, promising a fierce defense. The case, demanding a jury trial, seeks justice for beneficiaries and taxpayers.
Medicare costs are a silent thief—thousands of your dollars just vanish if you pick the wrong plan...
And there are a lot of Americans out there who have been taken in by slick advisers promising great plans, only to find out later that things like co-pays are now bleeding them dry, or that the doctor they trust is no longer on their plan.
Chapter is different.
I’ve met with these people personally, and I know that they founded their whole company specifically because their own parents got taken in with terrible Medicare programs, and they wanted to do something to change that, so it doesn’t happen to you.
At Chapter, they don’t just guide you—they search every plan, from every carrier, with technology so sharp it cuts through the noise.
These are licensed advisors with no hidden agendas.
Other Medicare advisers might cherry-pick plans that pad their pockets—Chapter puts you first.
So, if you are turning 65 or are already on Medicare, contact the good people at Chapter. Chapter is your move for anything related to Medicare.
Dial #250 and say key word “Chapter” or go to askchapter.org/beck.
- Glenn Beck
