Paul Ryan and the GOP Make Lindsey Graham Look Like Benjamin Franklin

Well, it looks like Republicans are going to pull a Nancy Pelosi with the Obamacare replacement bill. We'll have to pass it to see exactly what's in it. If only we'd elected someone who promised to drain the swamp, destroy the GOP, tear the system down and get the weasels out. Oh wait, we did.

Unfortunately, Trump has failed to deliver on many of his promises --- and it won't be Paul Ryan and the GOP holding his feet to the fire.

"I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're like, 'Oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham.' Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now . . . Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse," Glenn said Thursday on radio.

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 4:10 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Glad you're here. So the Republicans are looking to pass the new health care bill, and I like the fact that we all know all about it, we've had a chance to debate the bill and talk about it, and they're not just jamming it down and jamming it through.

PAT: No and yes.

GLENN: Look at how twisted he is. No and yes. Which one is it?

STU: Make up your mind, moron.

GLENN: Right. Moron. Moron. Moron. Why do you hate people so much, moron?

Anyway, so we're going to pass it, and we don't really know what's in it, except they're going to cut back on some of it, which will make it even better.

PAT: Well, I think what the Republicans are kind of saying is they're going to get this done, even if they have to pole vault over it, if they have to parachute into it, if they have to bulldoze through it, they're gonna get it done. And then when they get it passed, then we're going to find out what's in it. I mean, shut up.

GLENN: Well, we do know this.

PAT: Right? I'm with you guys now.

GLENN: Make America great. So here's the thing. We're going to -- apparently, this is -- because I've heard this in the media. This is the biggest transfer of wealth in American history.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, wow. That's great.

STU: That's great.

GLENN: They didn't say that when they were taking money from people who were working and then giving it directly to the poor for their health care. That was not -- that was social justice. This now taking the money from the people who have jobs and not giving it to the poor but allowing those people who have jobs to maybe keep a couple of extra dollars that they already earned, that's a transfer of wealth. You're transferring the wealth not from the rich to the poor but you're not transferring it --

PAT: No, you're taking it from the poor, and you're giving it to the wealthiest among us who don't need it.

STU: A huge tax cut for the rich. This is illegitimate their argument. You're not making this up. They're saying as of a few years ago, money was earned by people, and then they passed a bill where the money they earned had to be given to someone else.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: And, by the way. One of the architects of the program said it must be that way.

STU: It must be that way.

PAT: That a health care plan that was fair and just and right must, must redistribute wealth.

GLENN: By the way, it's not just somebody who was part of it, it was the head guy.

PAT: Donald Berwick.

GLENN: Yeah. It was the head guy of ObamaCare. So it was about redistribution of wealth. But, no, everybody called us racists by pointing that out, using their own words. But now the press is saying this is the biggest transfer of wealth of all time. This is a horrible, horrible thing. They're right. Not about the, you know, transfer of wealth. They're right about this is a horrible, horrible thing because all this is going to do is weaken things. First of all, it started out as a 5 billion-dollar pool for those with existing conditions. Well, no. $5 billion? That's going to cover everybody with existing conditions? Probably not. Okay. So we're going to really bulk down, says the Republicans. What we're going to do is we're going to ask for $8 billion. Exactly like Dr. Evil would do. Okay, then it is $8 billion?

CBO estimates, and they don't have anything out on this officially yet. But it will take five times that amount. Could be $50 billion to be able to cover preexisting conditions. Now, if that's what the CBO says, you can guarantee it is at least five to ten times what the CBO says because they always have it wrong. So they're going to take more money and put it into the existing conditions. And the Republicans will say, yes, but at least we're not going to collapse the insurance companies. Yes, you will. You'll be able to find a way to collapse. Believe me. We have no doubt that you can collapse the free-market system.

Make no mistake, the reason why the Heritage Foundation was targeted, remember, if it wasn't for Jim DeMint, you wouldn't have Neil Gorsuch as your Supreme Court justice. You would not have them. It was Jim DeMint that put that list together, that pushed that list, that made sure Donald Trump stayed on that list, and that's why we have Neil Gorsuch. They took him out because the Heritage Foundation at the time was saying "No, this health care bill is just as bad. Maybe it's a little bit better, but this isn't what the American people wanted.

So just like Obama, we have to watch what this administration see what the other hand is doing. They told us we're coming after the Freedom Caucus. But instead, what they did is we were rallying around the Freedom Caucus, they took out and took out the Heritage Foundation. Now the Heritage Foundation is in the clutches of the Steve Bannons of the world and the Lindsey Grahams who strangely makes more sense now than people like Paul Ryan. When -- I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're, like, oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now. That's how far out -- Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse.

So now what they're going to do is they're going to pass this thing and strong arm everybody to vote for it, as Pat said, Nancy Pelosi said during the ObamaCare debacle, we're going to pole vault over the wall, we're gonna drop in, parachute in, we're going to do whatever we have to do, and that's exactly what they're going to do.

STU: Is there room for the argument? And some Republicans are making it, that we all know whatever the house passes. Let's say they pass the perfect health care plan, it's going to go to the senate, and the senate is going to do something completely different, and they're going to have to come together at the end anyway. So is it worth getting something through? You're going to have to go through this process later on anyway with the senate. Get it through, and figure out if you can come up with something good with the senate, and then you'll be able to vote on that. Is it not worth advancing this so at least there's --

GLENN: No, it's not to at least do anything because it's going to collapse, and anything you do ... then the whole damn thing is blamed on you just in time for the Democrats to ride in on their Marxist horse and say "See? They screwed it up. Made it worse. We have to go single pair health care."

STU: What do you do, though? Nothing?

GLENN: No, what you do is you fix the damn thing. You actually fix and allow it to be free market.

STU: But the reality is --

GLENN: That's not going to happen.

STU: The reality is that it's not going to --

GLENN: Yeah, I know that.

STU: So why not advance something? And you're going to have to have this negotiation at the end anyway.

GLENN: You know what? There's -- because there's nobody with a spine, I guess, you know, I could look at that and say, well, I'm paying taxes. I would rather have less taxes take from me for something that I know is a disaster and destroying health care. But at least I'm paying less for it.

STU: So what you're advocating for, seemingly, is a massive transfer of wealth from your paycheck back to you.

GLENN: Yes. I am.

STU: Can you believe this guy? He's saying it out loud. He wants his own money.

PAT: Selfishness. Selfish. Selfish.

STU: Selfish, what a jerk. In reality, I don't know what you do here. I would not want to vote for this. It's a disaster, and it's getting worse by the day. However, with this process the way it is, with the people in office that are in office, I don't know if you just take a 5 percent gain, and it's -- hey, it's 5 percent better than ObamaCare, so take it and go. And maybe you'll have a few years of 5 percent better until the whole thing blows up anyway because keeping ObamaCare, if it's going to blow up with this plan, it's going to blow up with ObamaCare too. It's just a matter of who you're blaming it on. So do you sit here and not do anything?

GLENN: No, because they'll blame that on you. "You knew that ObamaCare wasn't working, and you refused to do anything."

STU: You're going to get blamed either way. We all know this.

GLENN: You know what would have been nice? Man, we should have thought of this. If we would have had somebody that -- what is it? Oh, had principles. If we just had somebody that had principles, you know, because don't get me wrong. This guy, this president, he's going to be able to go in there and is going to be able to destroy the GOP, tear the system down, he's going to get the weasels out, he's going to get those things done, and he can beat the media, and that's why he's going to be able to do it because he doesn't care about the media, and he doesn't care about losses.

So he's going to be able to get that done.

STU: He can certainly have talked his way through the Civil War but not this. Not a GOP congress and repealing.

GLENN: Yes. Right. Right.

STU: That's too high of a hill.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But certainly would have solved the slavery thing by a little talking if he was around.

PAT: Just exactly like Andrew Jackson did.

GLENN: No, but he didn't.

PAT: No, he did. He fixed all Civil War.

GLENN: And he had a gigantic plantation down in the south. I don't know if anybody noises that. But he had a giant plantation. Of course, he didn't have it when he got into office. He was poor when he got into office, and then he just started taking the land from the Indians, the Native Americans, and he would tell his friends. He set up a little kind of offshore real estate company, and he would look at the map after inviting his friends to the White House and say "And, by the way, I'm about to release all of this land. You might go have it appraised. And then when I release it, the first in the title office, and I had nothing to do with this." That's how he bought his mansion. He left -- he came in poor, and he left one of the wealthiest presidents of all time.

PAT: You have to admire, though, how he broke every promise to the Indians. You have to admire that.

GLENN: You do. You really do.

PAT: You have to say --

GLENN: Well, he had a big heart.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: Huge.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: And he was so upset about slavery, he could have solved it. He was a soldier in the south. I mean, what soldiers in the south back then weren't against slavery?

STU: Well, I didn't say he was going to solve it that way. Maybe he was going to solve it by keeping it. We just said that he was going to solve the problem. We didn't say slavery was going to go away.

GLENN: Yeah, solve the problems of the Civil War.

STU: Civil War.

GLENN: You're right.

STU: Because people ask. Why does Civil War happen? We don't know. Who knows. There hasn't been any thought put into that. No historian has written a book about it. It's just basically someone flipped a coin and said we're going to war. Why do that?

GLENN: They didn't be need to.

PAT: They need to.

STU: That was one of the big issues at the time.

GLENN: Abraham Lincoln, he was more of a war monger. It was Andrew Jackson who was such a decent human being and sometimes the slaves would come in and wipe the tears from his eyes. He was such a good guy. And the Native Americans --

PAT: They loved him.

GLENN: And he loved them. He loved the kerosene lamps that he, the lamp shades made out of Native American skin. It was beautiful. And he had such a heart. And those lamps lit the way for American divine destiny and manifest destiny.

STU: A lot of people blame the Trail of Tears on him and in reality, that was someone who littered and the Indian was looking over the hill and saw the litter and started crying. One tear.

GLENN: Yeah. And they were mixed with Andrew Jackson's tears. He was, like, you're bloodying up this property that I'm about to sell to my friends so that I can be the richest man in America by the end of my term. But who doesn't admire him?

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.