It's Here! It's Here! The Senate Health Care Bill Is Here (And It's Just Like Obamacare)

At long last, the Republican-controlled senate released their version of the health care bill. And it sounds so much better than Obamacare: The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. Unfortunately, it's better in name only, as it retains essentially the same framework as Obamacare.

"I am so tired of Washington, D.C., I have to tell you. I have to apologize for, you know, my behavior over the last year and a half when I was fighting for Ted Cruz. You know, I believed that we could fix this country because we could go back to the Constitution. I think you were ahead of me. You knew that Washington, D.C. is so broken that there's no one going back to the Constitution. It's just not going to happen in today's climate. So I apologize for actually believing. You were ahead of me on that," Glenn admitted Thursday on radio.

The details of the senate plan, which prompted Glenn's gloominess, were outlined in a tidy, easy-to-read 148-page summary. Co-host Stu Burguiere gave the Cliff Notes version of the summary, courtesy of Reason:

It is exactly what critics predicted: a bill that, at least in the near term, retains weakened versions of nearly all of Obamacare's core features while fixing few if any of the problems that Republicans say they want to fix. It is Obamacare lite—the health law that Republicans claim to oppose, but less of it. It represents a total failure of Republican policy imagination.

Even more than the House plan, the Senate plan retains the essential structure of Obamacare's individual market reforms. Like the House plan, the Senate plan retains Obamacare's major insurance regulations, including the requirement to cover preexisting conditions at the federal level.

"If this continues, insurance companies will go out of business," Glenn predicted.

So, yay, senate Republicans for putting those big, well-paid brains to use and delivering exactly the opposite of what the American people wanted: A complete repeal of Obamacare.

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 1:40, from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: You know, I am so tired of Washington, DC. I have to tell you, I -- I think -- I have to apologize for, you know, my behavior over the last year and a half. When I was fighting for Ted Cruz, you know, I believed that we could fix this country because we could refer -- you know, we could go back to the Constitution. I think you were ahead of me. You know that Washington, DC, is so broken, that there's no one going back to the Constitution. It's just not going to happen in today's climate. So I apologize for actually believing. You were ahead of me on that.

Let's look at what's happening with the health care bill.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Health care bill -- and we have to --

PAT: Well, keep in mind, this is Republicans. So they're fixing it. This is going to be -- it's fixed.

JEFFY: Keep in mind, it's the beginning. It's just the beginning.

PAT: It's repeal and replace. And I'll bet you, they've really taken a hard stand here.

GLENN: Keep in mind, we're at 11:08 Eastern Time in the morning, if you happen to listen to this show delayed. So we're just getting the bill. It's just been released. So we're kind of -- Stu is looking at the whole bill. We're looking at the reads of the bill. So we can't give you our opinion quite yet on this. But we will tomorrow.

They have -- they've released the G.O.P. Senate version. The Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017. It looks more than a little like the House bill, which kept most of Obamacare's structure in place. The Senate plan actually looks closer to Obamacare, that is already on the books.

You don't have to be told this. But this is why I'm so sick of Washington, DC. And I apologize to you.

The average plan has -- has risen by 22 percent. By the way, that was last year. The average plan rose in cost by 22 percent.

PAT: Bearing in mind, that this was going to save everybody $2,500 per family, per year. Remember? That was the promise.

GLENN: Yeah. In just the last year. And early reports show large spikes are coming this year as well.

The -- the for-profit health insurance providers -- you know, the people who actually think we need to be able to make money to be able to keep this thing running, have lost so much money, they've either scaled back their participation, or have dropped out entirely. Obamacare is collapsing now. The -- unlike the House plan, the Senate plan does not allow states to apply for a waiver to opt out of those rules. But it does eliminate the health insurance mandate.

Here's Stu to give us -- who has been trying to read this 148-page summary on exactly what it means.

STU: It's pretty -- I mean, it's interesting. Here is -- I like this -- to give you the boildown here to start: It is exactly what critics predicted.

This is from Reason.

A bill that at least in the near-term retains weakened versions of nearly all of Obamacare's core features, while fixing few, if any of the problems that Republicans say they want to fix. It is Obamacare-lite, the health care law that Republicans claim to oppose, but less of it.

It represents a total failure of Republican policy imagination. Here's some of the details of it. Even more than the House plan, the Senate plan --

GLENN: By the way, can I ask -- I heard last night the Republicans are saying they wanted to keep Donald Trump away from this bill because it was so hard to get done, and they just wanted him, because they were afraid he would make a mess of this, that they wanted to keep him away from this bill.

STU: I don't know if that's true.

GLENN: That's what I heard. I saw a report and I saw the actual screen grab of that text coming from a congressman.

And looking at this, how could have anyone made this worse?

STU: He's apparently been lobbying for it. He's -- reportedly was lobbying Rand Paul to try to get him to vote for it. Mike Lee had also been lobbied, reportedly by Ted Cruz on this, to see how he could get down the road. So --

PAT: Does that mean Ted Cruz is for it?

STU: No, that's not been announced. It just was one report.

GLENN: There are four -- I don't know who they are yet, but there are four -- they need all but two Republicans to sign up.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And there are Republicans who said, from what I know so far, I'm not interested, but I'm not ruling it out.

STU: And that's -- look, I think that's -- you shouldn't rule it out yet. Right?

GLENN: No, you shouldn't, until you've read it.

STU: There's lots of debate to happen. The problem is, what usually happens in these debates is the bill gets worse.

GLENN: It gets worse.

STU: But -- so let me give you some more, the actual details of this. Again, this is the new Senate version of the, quote, unquote, repeal and replace bill from Obamacare.

Even more than the House plan, the Senate plan retains the essential structure of Obamacare's individual market reforms. Like the House plan, the Senate plan retains Obamacare's major insurance regulations, including the requirement to cover preexisting conditions at the federal level.

GLENN: Okay. So that's the thing that Chuck Schumer said, it's a very, very sad bill. I'm sorry. Very, very mean bill.

Because they were saying that they wanted to take out preexisting conditions. So you understand -- so your friends understand, the entire thing about insurance is -- and this has been lost through SSI, Social Security Insurance. That's not insurance. That's a guarantee. Health care is not a guarantee. The way insurance works is you're in pools of people, and the bigger the pool, the better. But what do we do? We break those pools up. You cannot cross state lines. So I can't be in a pool with people all across the country.

So what happens? If you're put in the pool, the company is betting that you're not going to get sick, knowing that some people will be born with cerebral palsy, and somebody will have a heart attack, and somebody in their pool will have cancer. But it's not a sure thing.

If I said, "I'm going to cover everyone who has cancer," and you don't have to pay me prior to having cancer, that's a losing proposition. Cancer centers can't do that. The American Cancer Society can't do that. If you want to cover everyone with cancer, then you should demand that the American Cancer Society covers everyone with cancer.

No one can afford to do that.

PAT: And this is why we said at the beginning, if this passes, there's no getting rid of it.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Because once you've given this to people, it's nearly impossible to take it away.

GLENN: You can't take it. And if you wanted to do something, where people had preexisting conditions of some -- something, then you -- and you can't feel like you can't take it away. Okay. Then come up with a government program, which I'm completely against. But I'm not hearing anybody say this. That is outside of the insurance system. Come up with something different for people with preexisting, catastrophic conditions that need help.

Okay. I don't like that. I would never propose that. But that's the way you do it, to protect the insurance for people who have the sniffles and the cold and a broken arm.

What's happening is, people are not -- you have insurance -- and I can't go to the insurance company and say, "Hey, I just broke my arm -- I need to you -- I need you to sign up." No, I'm sorry. You can't sign up once you've broken your arm. But that's what is happening. You don't have to have the insurance. You don't have to pay in. But you're guaranteed, if you have a preexisting condition, to get it.

So I've never paid a dime to an insurance company. I'm not paying in for the pool.

PAT: Why not just wait till you get sick and then sign up? Why not?

GLENN: Right. And I sign up. And then the insurance company has to take you and cover you.

PAT: This is why so many -- so many insurance companies have dropped out of the exchanges. They just can't do it.

GLENN: If this continues, insurance companies will go out of business.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: Now, they signed -- I have no sympathy at all for these insurance companies.

STU: Many of them pushed for this, for Obamacare.

GLENN: Yes. And the biggest ones did.

STU: And, of course, you know, I don't know, could it be because it benefits them in the long-run? I mean, basically what they have designed is a system that legally required people come into their store and buy their product.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So, of course, obviously you're going down a road here which ends likely in them, you know, getting -- their industry getting money from every single citizen in the country.

GLENN: But it doesn't -- but it doesn't work that way.

STU: It doesn't work here. This is a half step -- again, I don't think any of it works. But insurance companies like it for that reason.

GLENN: Here. Let me explain this outside of insurance. If the NFL said everybody has to --

STU: Uh-oh.

GLENN: Listen to me.

STU: Oh, no. We're going to the sports analogy.

GLENN: No, no, no. We're okay.

STU: Okay. We're okay.

PAT: Danger, Will Robinson. Danger.

GLENN: Everybody has to buy NFL season tickets.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And everybody has to buy it, but the government then said, you have to guarantee that those people who already have season tickets gets season tickets and those are free. Those are -- don't have to worry about it. They pay regular price. You know, and it's a reduced price. But then no one else in the country is buying their season tickets because they didn't want them. And it doesn't matter to them. What the hell is going to happen to the NFL? Now, the NFL is just having to buy all their own tickets? There's no -- they're not making any money. I think they thought, well, if we get everybody in the country to pay, we're going to make tons of money. Nobody is doing it. Nobody is doing it.

STU: Yeah. I hate to step on your point here, which is a good one. And obviously the preexisting conditions argument is something we've had for a long time. However, that argument is completely irrelevant in our society right now. Currently, Obamacare guarantees preexisting conditions. The House bill guarantees preexisting conditions. The Senate bill guarantees preexisting conditions. And the president has said he must have preexisting conditions in any bill that he would support. So it is like there is no one on the other side, outside of nine people in this audience, who actually think insurance is insurance anymore.

GLENN: Right. Right. And so that's the problem. If you want to take preexisting conditions and come up with something that's not insurance, then that's good. Or if you say, all right. We're going to do preexisting conditions -- we as the United States of America believe that no one should have to worry about a catastrophic failure. And, you know what, there's a lot to be said for that. That no one in this country should ever have to lose their house because they have cancer or their kid has cancer and they've lost everything. Okay.

So we as a society step in and say, we're going to take care of you. I don't think that's a wise idea. But it's charitable and it's nice and it makes us feel good. And it is a nice thing to do.

Okay. Great. But that's not insurance. So let's solve that problem. And then, how can we make the insurance that everybody needs really cheap? They're not doing that.

They're not making insurance more cheaply. They're making it much more expensive. This is only going to make things worse and collapse the entire system.

STU: Quickly on this point -- because this is point one of this. This is really not one even one that's being argued about at this point.

GLENN: Argued. Yeah.

STU: It also retains another thing that is in Obamacare, in the House plan, now in the Senate plan, and also something the president wants, which is, you keep your kids on your insurance until they're 26 years old. So the only difference here --

GLENN: How is it my kid is an adult to the government and to the doctors when they're eight, when they can -- when they could get birth control the minute they start to menstruate and have an abortion and they're an adult and they have nothing -- I have nothing to say about that. But they're a kid that I have to continue to pay for until they're 26.

STU: I will add to this, the one difference between the House and the Senate plan is some of these restrictions, under the House plan, gave the option for states to opt out, to get a waiver and opt out of some of these restrictions. Not all. But some.

GLENN: The House plan did, which was awful.

STU: The House plan did. It was already bad. The Senate plan does not give states the option to get a waiver and drop out of some of the more --

GLENN: Can you see if we can get Mike Lee on? See if we can get Mike Lee on. I'd love to hear what he has to say about this bill.

STU: I mean, it just -- you know, it's just coming out, so he may not want to.

GLENN: He may not know. But if he knows about it, maybe we can get him on tomorrow.

[break]

GLENN: All righty.

So we're looking -- so Stu says, "Glenn shut up. You've brought up two things that are not in the bill, and nobody is even arguing for." Okay. So let me ask you this: State lines. Insurance across state lines. Right? That one is in there.

PAT: I mean, that's a no-brainer. That's what everybody thought could make this so much better.

GLENN: Yeah. You're seeing that, right? I mean, Reason and Politico and everybody else.

PAT: So surely that's like point one.

STU: That is not point one. No. Per se.

PAT: Two. Okay. It's two.

GLENN: But it's at least mentioned in all the articles that you've read. I know you haven't read the full bill yet.

STU: Right. No.

GLENN: No. It's -- wait.

STU: No.

PAT: Where is it then? Okay. It's not in the first one or two --

GLENN: It's not in any articles about it.

STU: No.

So it's interesting in that --

PAT: It's hard to believe they can't even do that, isn't it?

STU: I just don't know.

GLENN: No. No. No. Hang on.

May I have an intervention? It's time for an intervention.

STU: I agree with that. I mean, it might not be the same kind of intervention you're talking about.

GLENN: You're referring to like having one with me.

STU: No. I would not.

GLENN: Okay. I think it's time for an intervention on Pat. He's like, it's crazy that they couldn't even get that done.

Stop it. Let go of that silly belief that these people will do the right thing. Stop it, Pat. It's harmful to you, your family, your relationships. Our relationship. The country.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Give up on that belief.

PAT: Give up all hope in our government. In our government.

GLENN: In our government. All hope.

PAT: Okay.

JEFFY: I mean, people are already giving up hope on the feed: If health care costs continue to rise, they're going to have to start selling face cream.

STU: Sure.

JEFFY: So they're worried.

GLENN: Joanna Gaines is already doing it. She's doing it.

STU: No, she's not.

GLENN: Right.

STU: I actually got an email from someone, very beginning of the sort of Trump administration, from a person who was a big Trump skeptic. Did not like Trump at all.

And they said, oh, my gosh -- when these first reports were coming out -- oh, my gosh, they're going to repeal Obamacare. I can't believe this. I did not think this would happen.

Yeah, this is where we are now. Just a few months later, I mean, all of that -- even the hope I think from almost everyone on the conservative side looking at these bills is dead. Now, you hope maybe you get the individual mandate and a few of the taxes gone. And you say, "Hey, celebrate. We backed off ten on the horrible scale to a 9.5." That's all we're hoping for. That's the only thing we're even wishing for out of this bill anymore. And that is really where we are. If what you hope for is a small government and a free market and a conservative platform, you're not even hoping anymore for something good. You're hoping to take a ten and reverse it a little bit to an eight or a nine.

GLENN: I'm hoping that they don't torture me before they shoot me in the head.

STU: Okay. All right.

(laughter)

GLENN: That's kind of where we are. Just, will you just kill me quickly?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Or do you have to torture me too? Back in just a second.

(OUT AT 10:32AM)

GLENN: All right. Let's -- let's go to the health care bill. We're going to give you the full rundown of this tomorrow, what it means. And then we'll hopefully talk to a couple of Senate leaders on it tomorrow. This just came out about an hour ago, so we haven't read the entire bill yet. We're trying to scan it as we go in between the breaks. Stu has a couple of updates. And then we're going to move on to something else that is happening, the border wall.

STU: Okay. So we know one of the big complaints about the House bill, was it's going to create all this instability. Some people are going to drop off insurance. Blah, blah, blah.

The way the Senate bill attempts to manage that is by buying off health insurance companies with payments Republicans previously argued were illegal and should be stopped. They're called CSR payments. Cost-sharing reduction payments. They're subsidies due to insurers through 2019. It authorizes those and back payments of those subsidies that insurers have not received. On this front, it's actually an expansion of Obamacare.

GLENN: So wait. So we're paying our tax dollars, and we're giving subsidies to insurance programs?

STU: Right. Yeah. To insurance companies to make it essentially worth their while, to reduce their cost.

GLENN: How about my freaking 21 percent increase that I paid last year as being their incentive? Jeez.

STU: Now, to give Trump some credit here, these are the payments that he, in particular, was talking -- at least had been floated in the media that Trump was talking about, withholding these payments to the insurance companies, which basically would make the entire individual market fall apart. And so this is the Senate saying, no, not only are we going to do them, we're going to give them back payments, which is actually going to give them more money and actually expand Obamacare slightly on that.

PAT: Jeez. Jeez.

GLENN: So we know that the insurance company lobby got their chit in.

STU: Yeah, they got their stuff in.

So --

GLENN: I did say C-H.

STU: I assumed you didn't just swear in that --

GLENN: Yeah. I just saw -- I just saw kind of everybody look at each other. And I'm like, no, I just want to make sure.

PAT: I was trying to think, what was that word exactly?

STU: Yes, they got their stuff.

So this is probably -- if you want the clearest example as to what the G.O.P. Senate health care bill does -- if you just want to understand it with one little function, it's this: The House version of the repeal provided free money to people for health care, as does Obamacare. They did it based on age. The Senate bill does it based on income, which is the exact same way Obamacare does it. Here's the difference, however. Again, this is what I'm talking about, the difference of these plans. Obamacare gave free money to people up to $98,000 a year in salary. Okay. That's Obamacare.

PAT: All right.

STU: $98,000 a year.

PAT: You get free money up to 98,000. Okay?

STU: Yes. The Senate bill will give free money to people for health care, up to $86,000 a year.

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: So that's the difference. It is -- instead of 98,000, they're making it 86,000.

GLENN: So wait. That's more money than --

STU: No. Why do I -- why do I use numbers? Why do I even use them? Why even say them out loud?

GLENN: Wait. So wait.

STU: If you earn up to $86,000 a year, under the G.O.P. plan, you'll get free money. Under Obamacare, it was 98,000. So it is a slight tiny, teeny roll back of what this was.

GLENN: Got it. Got it. Got it.

STU: And if you want to look at it easily -- you know, if what we had in 2008 was a zero and Obamacare was a ten, as far as where these plans are --

GLENN: This is a nine and a half.

STU: This is -- let's say the health -- the House plan was an eight, and this is a nine. Right?

GLENN: Which is exactly what we said it would be.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: We said it would go to the Senate and it would get worse. And everybody said, "No, no, it's going to get better."

JEFFY: Just the beginning. We're working through this one.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Okay.

STU: So there you go. You want a basic understanding. We'll get into more --

PAT: But it does two good things that we know of, right? It removes the individual mandate.

STU: Which to me -- and I've said this before many times.

PAT: Which is good.

STU: I believe is the most offensive part of Obamacare. The individual mandate.

PAT: Well, it is. It's unconstitutional.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I maintain that regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: But the individual mandate is the only thing that makes this work, supposedly.

STU: I don't know. You could argue that. You know, one person who argued the opposite of that was Barack Obama in the campaign. He said you didn't need an individual mandate. If you wanted an individual mandate, you could just --

PAT: Make people buy homes, and you won't have homeless.

STU: Have people buy homes, and there would be no homelessness. I mean, he used to mock that idea. But you're right, I mean, there is a function of it, to force people and gather all their money through tax penalties to pay for this nonsense.

GLENN: Is the Cadillac tax gone?

STU: The Cadillac tax, I have not read that on this particular bill. The House bill pushed it out, but did not remove it.

GLENN: Okay. That's craziness. How can you continue -- look, as a businessman, I cannot run my business and plan for the future when I don't know what the government is going to cost me next year or the year after or the year after that.

STU: I know.

GLENN: I have to have a stable environment to be able to run my business.

STU: And so much of this is just bookkeeping, figuring. Right?

GLENN: No. You know what it is? It's not only bookkeeping, figuring, it's also, when is the next election that we need to be the savior of the world?

STU: Exactly. For example, the Medicaid. What they're doing with Medicaid is they're slowly rolling back the Medicaid. And they're cutting it deeply. Deep cuts to this Medicaid program. And that's one of the things that the Democrats are going to say about it.

However, it pushes those cuts so far out in the future, but still within the ten-year frame. The ten-year frame is important because that's how they score these CBO bills.

So when they're -- they have to do this to get reconciliation to work. So what they're doing is, they're telling you, you know what, we're going to cut Medicaid by 900 percent, we promise, in 2026.

We all know that is not going to occur. When it comes down to 2026, they're going to just change it and start spending that money again. So it is not even real. The savings here is not even real. They're obviously going to change that later on, as they've done many times before or on both sides of the aisle.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details: