Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

If Trump Embraces Single-Payer Health Care, the Country Is Lost

April 03, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What is Donald Trump doing with health care? Is he moving our way --- or is he headed toward universal health care? It's hard to tell.

"What I can't figure out is he's playing golf with Rand Paul, he's trashing on Twitter the Freedom Caucus and then he comes out over the weekend and says --- the White House does --- No, you know, I can't believe all this fake news saying that we're arguing with each other and we're at each other's throats. Fake news? It's your tweets, dude," Glenn said Monday on radio.

One thing's for sure, if Trump embraces single-payer health care, we're done and officially the country formerly known as the United States of America.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I want to get to the Los Angeles times on Donald Trump, which it really is incredible, how the mainstream media just does not see their own hypocrisy. We'll get to that here in just a second.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: What is Donald Trump doing with health care? Is he moving our way? Which way is he going?

STU: Maybe we can ask Rand Paul. They played some golf this weekend. Hopefully some good results out of that. Rand has a much better idea on health care than Ryan or Trump.

PAT: We should try to get him on the air. Ask him about it. Wonder if he would be willing to talk about it.

GLENN: Yeas. Of course he would. Of course he would.

Mike, see if we can get him on the air.

STU: Because he's been very solid on this since the election. He's been pushing hard. He has a much better plan than most --

PAT: Yes, he has. He's been maybe the most solid on it.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

PAT: Because you got other people defecting from like the Freedom Caucus, like Ted Poe.

GLENN: You can't let that go.

PAT: It just pisses me off. He wrote a big opinion piece on why I left the Freedom Caucus. And it's filled with the same infuriating BS. This is not a perfect bill. There's no such thing as a perfect bill. Hey, we must stop allowing the perfect to be the enemy of good?

No, why don't we focus on being good. And then maybe that can be the enemy of really terrible. How about that?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Just --

GLENN: We're not looking for perfection.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Just looking for --

PAT: That's the excuse the Democrats used when they crafted this piece of garbage in the first place. Well, it's not a perfect bill. But we had to do something.

GLENN: But we'll get there.

PAT: And we'll get there eventually. No.

GLENN: And we are getting there eventually.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We are. To their goal.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And I understand you're never going to get perfect. But shouldn't you be able to see perfect from your first proposal? Shouldn't you be able to at least in the distance be able to see perfect from your first beginning negotiating point? Now, I understand you're not going to get everything in there.

PAT: Yes. Yes. If perfect is heaven, this bill is in south hell right now.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: You can't even see it from there.

STU: On the wrong side of the railroad tracks. It's sad.

PAT: Yes. Yes. I mean, and for them to be okay with it, for them to craft this delicious turd burger and say, "Go ahead. Eat up. Okay. No, it's not steak, but it's better than going hungry." No, it's really not. It's really not.

GLENN: I just can't figure out --

PAT: Especially when we've got good chefs in the kitchen who could be cooking us something delicious.

GLENN: Rand Paul is doing it. Ted Cruz has done it.

PAT: Yeah. Mike Lee.

STU: Mo Brooks.

PAT: Yeah, Ted Cruz's plan is awesome.

GLENN: Yeah, there's some good plans out there. He should pick one and try that. You know what's -- what I can't figure out is he's playing golf with Rand Paul. He's trashing on Twitter the Freedom Caucus. And then he comes out, over the weekend, and says -- the White House does, "No -- you know, I can't believe all this fake news saying that we're arguing with each other and we're at each other's throats."

STU: So weird.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: Fake news? It's your tweets, dude.

STU: You are the one saying -- and not even in another venue. It was on the same account. You're saying that everyone is fake for saying there's differences, when you are promising to primary people in 2018 that disagree with you. That's not a loving relationship.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: That's really incredible. I don't know -- I mean, I just don't think people care, right? We were talking about this off the air. Because there's a new -- there's a professor. His name -- Jonah Goldberg wrote about him. His name is F.H. Buckley. He's the law professor who helped organize Scholars and Writers for Trump.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

STU: Okay. And he wrote an interesting column for the New York Post this weekend. The headline: Why Trump should embrace single-payer health care.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: And it goes into saying that, well, Ryancare, which, again, is a bit fraudulent -- look, Trump pushed just as hard for this, and now he's saying he's going to primary people who opposed him on the battle. So it's just as much Trumpcare as it is Ryancare. Let's get over that for a second.

But Ryancare was something only an accountant or a right-wing ideologue could love. How could a right-wing ideologue love that?

That was a disastrous plan. It locked in 75 percent of Obamacare with a couple improvements on it.

So it goes in to say, Trump didn't promise that. He promised a plan that would leave no one insured. The SimpliSafe way to do this --

PAT: No one uninsured.

STU: Sure. Sorry. That would be a real weird campaign promise.

PAT: That would be weird.

STU: I promise you will not have insurance.

GLENN: But you'll pay through the nose.

STU: Sorry. The simplest way to do this is with universal health care or on the Canadian model with a right of individuals to purchase a Cadillac plan on top of this, out of pocket.

PAT: Oh, my.

STU: And there are things that might be added like removing the ban on reimporting drugs from Canada.

PAT: Jeez.

STU: And he goes on to say, you know who would support this? The people who elected Trump in 2016.

PAT: Would they?

STU: They weren't right-wing ideologues. They were people who had lost or feared they would lose their jobs. Many -- is this you, in the audience? I mean, certainly some of these things are these people. But a lot of other people voted for him as well.

They were people who had lost or had feared they would lose their jobs. Many were, but a few steps away from the diseases of despair, social isolation, drug and alcohol poisonings, and suicide.

PAT: What?

STU: And it goes on --

PAT: So it was suicidal people who voted for Trump.

STU: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Well, that explains a lot.

(laughter)

GLENN: That's so ridiculous. It's so crazy to say.

(laughter)

STU: As Jonah finished up: This is a problem. His estimation, Buckley -- and a lot of people say this -- that the Trump voter or the people who elected Trump, are one vast undifferentiated mass of down-on-their-luck, on-the-verge-of-suicide alcoholics and opiate-addicted sad sacks. As a mathematical or statistical proposition, it's a bit much to say they were the people who elected Donald Trump. Sure, they may have provided him the margin of victory in a handful of counties in Florida and Michigan, but if they did, it was only because rank-and-file Republicans put those states in play in the first place. About 9 percent of people who identify themselves as Democrats voted for Trump. About 7 percent of those who identified as Republican voted for Clinton.

So there's very little difference there. This whole idea that all these independents rushed one way or the other, it doesn't seem that that's necessarily what happened. The issue here though is, you know, if you did vote for Trump, you know, if he starts going down this road, will you oppose him then? We should get that on record now. Remember it now before he does it. Because people in the groups that supported him, the people he thinks have been loyal to him are going to him to encourage that he go to single-payer health care. At the same time, he's promising to primary the people who want it to be more conservative

PAT: And this is the Bernie Sanders plan, by the way. Keep that in mind. It's the socialist Bernie Sanders plan. So can we get behind that as a Republican Party?

STU: Say, we don't like that. Can we get to that one?

PAT: Can we? Can we say that right now, before Trump does get on board with this? Hopefully, he won't. But if he did, wouldn't that be wrong? Can we get that out of --

STU: It's a mental experiment. Sure, he's not going to do it. We can all agree he's not going to pay for it. But let's just think now how we feel if he did.

What would you say about it? Think about it now, before it happens, before it's a big issue.

Would you support it or oppose it?

STU: Right.

PAT: That's an important thing to remember.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And then write it down somewhere. Write it on like -- you know what, write it on permanent marker somewhere, like on a wall in your home, that you remember that when Donald Trump wasn't proposing single-payer health care, I thought it was a really bad idea. Just write it somewhere, I don't know, on your door. On your mirror, in permanent ink.

GLENN: There's no way -- there's no way -- I will tell you, you said eat your underwear. If the conservatives -- if you would go -- and he's not going to do this. If he would go for a single-payer health care system and the conservatives would go right along with him, I don't -- do I eat the whole underwear factory?

STU: I mean, would you?

GLENN: I don't know -- there's no way.

STU: Think of this scenario for a second.

PAT: If that happens, aren't we fairly lost as a country?

GLENN: Oh, yeah, we're done.

STU: In that crazy scenario, we would be lost, right?

PAT: We're lost.

STU: So -- but think of the scenario where let's say things don't go well the next couple years for Donald Trump as president and he's opposed by the Freedom Caucus and it pisses him off.

JEFFY: It's almost impossible.

STU: And in 2018, maybe the Democrats take control of the House. They only have 52 seats in the Senate. Maybe they take control of the House. And then he's thinking, well, things aren't going well. And these people stood in my way the whole time, and we have these real problems. I can solve them with the Democrats, and enough Republicans would certainly go along with him on this. You wouldn't need the Freedom Caucus on that one. You get the Democrats and you put together the most annoying Republicans in the House. He can absolutely get it done. It would be difficult for a Democrat president to get that done. It would not be difficult for a Donald Trump if he changed views on this or adopted his views from the campaign.

It would not be that difficult.

And, you know, it would be a big change, but, you know, you put --

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Trump supporting it.

PAT: He's done that stuff before though.

STU: He can do that. Trump supporting it. Because you'd get Democrats. You'd only have to get a few Republicans -- or maybe none! Depending on what happens in 2018. It might be none.

PAT: It's not like he's never changed a point of view, is it? In fact, it's quite the opposite.

GLENN: I don't think he's ever changed his view on health care. He has said that that's what he wants. Single-payer universal health care where everyone is covered.

PAT: Yes. And the government pays for it.

GLENN: And the government pays for it.

STU: And it seems like the Ted Poe argument here is to say, well, you should be scared of that. So let's embrace the really terrible policies he's doing right now so he doesn't get mad at us.

PAT: Yeah. Rather than saying, look, we've got a majority in Congress and we have the executive branch. Let's get something really good passed. I don't know why that can't be the mindset for the Republicans. But it just never is.

STU: And he's not making the policies. Put good policies in front of him and make him veto them.

PAT: Right. It's what they did with Obama.

STU: Right.

PAT: But they showed they weren't serious, didn't they? We're not serious.

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.