Has Jeffy Ever Been a Healthy Weight?

The medical community uses weight charts to estimate what a healthy body mass index should be – but their approach was too one-size-fits-all to suit Glenn and Jeffy on radio Thursday.

While looking at a weight chart to measure BMI, Jeffy was skeptical about the recommended weight for his height. A former football player, Jeffy said his lowest weight was 200 pounds.

“Was that when you were born?” Pat Gray joked.

Glenn talked about his lowest weight, saying he “looked like a stick,” and puzzled over the recommendation on the chart they were looking at: “I don’t know how you have any muscle mass at 180 [pounds] and 6’2”.”

GLENN: All right. So let's talk about surgeries. What you're dealing with in the government and what we're dealing with the military and elected surgeries and then also in the general population. I want you to understand what is coming your way. Before I tell you this, because it is bad new. Before I tell you this on tomorrow's program, and I believe it is at this time tomorrow; right? It's either hour number one or hour number two, we have the CEO of a new kind of insurance that will help a lot of people. It was a carve out in ObamaCare. And at this time tomorrow, if you are paying exorbitant rates, if you are having problems with insurance, listen tomorrow at this time. We may have an answer for you.

Now, let me tell you what we're headed toward. This is from the NHS. Now, this is from last year. The British NHS, the national health service. This is what we're headed for. A single-pair system. This is what the VA is, and this is why the VA is so bad. The socialized health care system, they now said that in May of last year, they spent $3.26 billion more than they actually had. That's hospitals, clinics, and doctors. 3.26 billion. So if you think you can buy the lie that this is going to save everybody money, you're fooling yourself. This is not an answer. This is another prescription for the death of our country because it's all just going to be added to our bill.

Played a remind your congressmen and senators that that bill will not go away. If we don't pay the Chinese their money back, if we don't pay people their money back, all they will do is claim our land and our resources. They will get their money back.

In north Yorkshire, hospital leaders have decided now to cut back and not provide hip or knee surgeries to smokers or those with body mass above 30. So if you're 5'10" and have a BMI of 30, that means you weigh 209 pounds.

If you're 5'5" -- 5'5", and you weigh 180 pounds, you are not allowed to have surgery. Why are they doing this?

PAT: In England.

GLENN: Yes, in England. Listen to this. Major surgery pose high risks for severely overweight patients and this who smoke. If somebody who is 5'5" and 180 pounds severely overweight? Who's defining severely overweight?

The NHS has for decades had a waiting list. Let me tell you what's happening, and this is before it really begins to collapse. NHS doctors routinely -- this is all backed up with facts. This is from Forbes magazine. NHS doctors routinely conceal from patients information about innovative new therapies that the NHS does not pay for as to not distress, upset, or confuse them. Does Charlie Gard come to mind?

Terminally ill patients are now classified as quote close to death. So the NHS does not have to provide any kind of life support or end of life benefits.

PAT: Wouldn't this be the very definition of death panels?

GLENN: Yes, it is. It's just the beginning.

JEFFY: What?

GLENN: If you're having hip surgery, and you smoke or you are horribly overweight, all you have to do -- if you think there's going to be, like, oh, that 180, scientifically that was the number.

No, the only number that they care about is 3.26 billion. That's it. So if everybody got their weight under 30 of the BMI, they will reduce it and say only this who have a BMI of 25. NHS expert guidelines on the management of high cholesterol are intentionally out of date. Putting patients at serious risk to save the NHS money.

When the government approved an innovative, new treatment for elderly blindness, the NHS initially decided to reimburse further treatment only after the parents. Blind in one eye. And reclassifying blindness as someone who didn't have sight in both eyes.

While most NHS patients expect to wait five months for a hip operation or knee surgery, leaving them immobile or disabled, the actual waiting list -- so you got your BMI under 30. Now you're put on a waiting list. You have 11 months to wait for a hip. 12 months to wait for a knee. That compares in the United States to this broken, awful system of three to four weeks for both hips and knees.

One in four Britains with cancer are denied treatment with the latest drugs proven to extend their life. One in four. Those who seek to pay for such drugs on their own are expelled from the system for making the government look bad. They're forced to pay for the entirety of the rest -- for the rest of their lives of all costs.

So you can't say. Okay. Well, I'll pay for that. You guys just pay for what's covered. If you say I'm going to pay for this drug myself, you are then spit out of the system, and you must pay every dime for everything you do for the rest of your life.

Britain's diagnosed with cancer and heart attacks are more likely to die.

Britain's survival rate for heart disease and cancer are little better than former communist countries. That's where we're headed, gang. So what did congress do yesterday? They didn't call for a full repeal of this socialized medicine that we're headed towards. This is what we're going to get. Because the system that we have under the ACA does not work.

Okay. So what do we do? Common sense would tell us let's super serve the people that we have. You're between jobs, and you have no insurance, and your company has gone out of business, so there is no cobra. Okay. Let's make it easy to get onto Medicare or Medicaid right now so you can get into the system and have that bridge of four or five months while you're unemployed.

The minute you're employed, and your health care system kicks in, you're out. Why is it so hard to do that. If you have a preexisting condition and no one will cover this, then you can get onto Medicare or Medicaid, and you can get that treatment that you need. Not experimental because we can't afford it. But we must be able to do experiments. We must be able to develop new medicines. And the only way to do that is with a free market. There's no new medicine for cancer coming out of Great Britain because they won't pay for them. If we go to a single pair system, you won't pay for experimental treatments because there will be no one to pay for it.

We know that there are people that are clogging up -- nobody's dying on the streets here. We know that there are people clogging up the hospitals, the ERs because they're using those as clinics. Good. Let's get them Medicare coverage, not at the hospitals, unless it's an emergency. But instead at a urgent care center. At a clinic in our towns. Let's get that done and provide them clean, good, basic care.

These problems are really easy. But what they're trying to do is they're trying to make themselves rich, they're trying to make themselves powerful, and they're trying to fix problems that don't exist. And by doing that, what they're doing is they're causing more problems, and they're causing your premiums to go up. They're causing your deductible to be absolutely outrageous. Let's see. I can pay $1,500, and then -- I could pay that every month. And then if I spend more than $10,000 then it will kick in. So I have to pay plus the $10,000 in medical cost. I don't have the money to take my kid to have an ear infection treated because I'm spending it on the $1,500 a month for in case they have cancer or a broken leg. And I don't even know if a broken leg would be -- would fit into that $10,000 if I haven't spent anything. It's almost like kids. I need he need to break an arm January 1st. We're all going to the hospital. I mean, it's crazy. It's absolutely crazy.

There is a solution. Tomorrow on this program, we're going to show you somebody who has started a company for a carve-out, and it may help save your family a lot of money. And we'll do that on tomorrow's program.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?