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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Iceland Is ‘Eradicating’ Down Syndrome – by Eradicating the People Who Have It

August 16, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Iceland has nearly “eradicated” Down syndrome … by encouraging parents to test their babies in the womb and abort them if their results show a likelihood of the genetic condition.

According to a recent CBS report, just one or two babies are born with Down syndrome on average per year in Iceland, which has a population of 330,000. In the country, close to 100 percent of pregnant women who test positive for Down syndrome in prenatal screenings choose abortion.

While Iceland is ahead when it comes to “eradicating” people with Down syndrome, America isn’t too far behind. Among U.S. women, an estimated 67 percent whose test results indicate a Down syndrome child decide to abort the baby.

Glenn looked at this heartbreaking story on radio Wednesday.

“Am I supposed to say, ‘Oh, look at that beautiful child that should be dead’?” he asked of the CBS story, which featured an image of a little girl from Iceland with Down syndrome who was one of the few to survive.

Glenn talked about people with Down syndrome and all that they have to offer the world.

“Down syndrome people are the best among us,” he said. “They truly are.”

GLENN: There was a story that I saw yesterday from CBS News. And it reported that Iceland is leading the world in, quote, eradicating Down syndrome births. End quote.

There was a tweet that said that. And then it had a picture of this really beautiful child. It said, "Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion." And has this beautiful child of about four years old in the snow hat and everything else.

Am I supposed to like that? Am I supposed to say, "Oh, look at that beautiful child that should be dead?"

This is one of the -- this, to me -- and I might be alone, this to me is the biggest symbol of the doom of humanity and the doom of our society.

We're talking about Down syndrome babies and a country that has now made it so easy and so right to abort your child if your test comes back and says they'll have Down syndrome.

They have taken the most beautiful children and beautiful people that I honestly have ever met. I have met spiritual leaders, big spiritual leaders. "Uh-huh. Right. Okay. Well, I'll listen to you on the pulpit, maybe, for about five minutes. You're a fraud." And then I've met people like Billy Graham, who is absolutely the real deal. But every Down syndrome child or person that I've ever met is a spiritual giant.

Years ago, I was young and had never spent any time around Down syndrome. And really people of different abilities really at all. I had no impact in my life personally with it. And I remember I was working in New Haven, Connecticut. And the Special Olympics, the global games for Special Olympics happened in New Haven, Connecticut. And the entire town left for the week. And it was really sad. Because the media had said, "Oh, traffic is going to be horrible." So everyone went on vacation for those ten days, and it was a ghost town.

And we went and we were working a lot of the events. And I will tell you that what -- the impact that that had on my life was profound. And the impact that I walked away with immediately is, you know -- and this is in the day -- in the early '90s, when we could still use this word. And I remember thinking, "You know, the world deems these children retarded." I'm the retarded one. I'm the one whose growth has been retarded from -- from -- from greed and malice and -- and ego and the world and stuff and sexuality and whatever it is.

Down syndrome people are the best among us. They truly are. It's not some politically correct, "Oh, they're the best among us." No, they're not. Yeah, these guys are.

They will be our rulers on the other side. Because they get it. They are not afraid -- all guile has been taken from them.

And CBS reports, "Through abortion, Iceland is the first to nearly eradicate these people." Thumbs up. That is not progress. Let's call it what it is: That's eugenics. That is Margaret Sanger's most base dream: Get rid of the undesirables. Get rid of the people who can't really work for a living, don't really have any quality of life.

I'd rather have their quality of life than mine. I would so much rather go through life loving everybody I meet.

Do you ever get to a point to where you don't want to understand the world? You just don't want to understand that there's just a lot of bad people.

Don't you ever get to the point where you're just like, "I -- I don't want to be a part of that anymore?"

This is what the article says: Other aren't lagging too far behind in Down syndrome termination rates. Iceland is on pace to virtually eliminate Down syndrome through abortion.

You're not eliminating Down syndrome. You're eliminating people. People.

You're not going in and genetically splicing something. You are eliminating people.

I'm concerned about the genetic splice. I'm a father of a daughter of special needs. Only a parent can truly understand this. A parent of special needs.

I would give my life for my daughter to have an easier life. But I would not take her life away because her life is tough. She's one of the best people I know. And she's made me such a better -- I mean, it's bad. Because I also realize, man, I've got a lot to learn. I've got a long way to go to be a good person. And it's a constant reminder to me. It's a -- she is a constant humbling of me.

Would I abort her? Never.

If I could abort the mean things that people have been -- have said to her, if I could abort the mean actions that people have shown her, if I could abort the pain that she has felt from those actions -- my daughter changed in the second grade. She had a friend who she never went over to their house. She never -- she -- we never met her friend. But it was her best friend. And she would come home and she would talk about her best friend all the time.

And one day, she came home, and she told us about how her best friend was having a birthday party. And she invited everybody. Said, "Oh, that's great, Mary. When -- when is the party?" And cheerfully, "Oh, I wasn't invited."

"What? I thought you said she invited everybody in the class."

"She did. But she didn't invite me." And she followed it up immediately with, "But that's okay. That's okay. I'm fine. I'm fine. And I'm just glad -- and I know she's going to have a great party."

I don't -- I don't think I stopped crying for two days. But I'd like that to go away? Yeah. But that has nothing to do with the way she was born. It has everything to do with the way, you know, normal people are born.

I would ask -- when I saw this story and I saw this sweet child, the bottom of a CBS tweet, with all kinds of likes underneath it, I thought, "We can go no lower." Unfortunately, we can. But not as the people we've been.

If this is the people -- this is a new chapter of humanity. And we've seen it before. It's the way the world usually is. The last 200 years have been an anomaly. The world usually is like the Game of Thrones. And we just won't be the same when we pass this door and cross its threshold.

And I would ask that you would beg for forgiveness and beg for God to heal our hearts and heal our land. Because I just don't think there's a lot left here in our corner before we turn real dark.

The good news: Everything is a choice. And I used to be a guy who was suicidal because I never thought things could change. And then I realized, everything can change the moment I decide.

The moment you decide, "I'm not going to be a part of that," the moment you decide, "Not on my watch," the moment you decide to choose love over hate, to choose hope over fear, you're going to be okay. But it has to be a conscious choice. It has to be one you have really thought about and you have spoken out loud.

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?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.