Glenn Beck: Little Pink House


Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage

by Jeff Benedict

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. There is a new book out called Little Pink House: The True Story of Defiance and Courage. For anybody who says, "I can't win, we'll never beat them, the government's out of control, I'm going to unplug, I'm done, I'm so angry, I'm going to act on my anger," this is a book for you. The true story of defiance and courage, one woman fighting for her Little Pink House, fighting eminent domain. In quite possibly the worst ruling of the Supreme Court, something that has dismantled your right to property more than anything else has been the key lo case," and everybody has missed the story except Jeff Benedict. Jeff Benedict is with us now. Hi, Jeff, how are you?

BENEDICT: Hey, it's great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: So remind everybody the story. Tell the story in a nutshell on what happened. Start with the woman bought this house.

BENEDICT: The nutshell story, Glenn, is Suzette key lo went through a divorce in her early 40s, was looking to start life over, had never owned anything in her life, she found a ramshackled cottage on Long Island Sound, buys it, moves in and doesn't realize that the governor at that time, John Rowland and his chief of staff Peter Ellef were in talks with Pfizer Corporation --

GLENN: Hold on just a second. You mean Governor Rowland, the one that went to prison for corruption?

BENEDICT: That's the one.

GLENN: Just want to make sure I -- there's a lot of governors going to jail for corruption. Just wanted to make sure I had the right one.

BENEDICT: He's one of them. He basically makes a deal with Pfizer which was not illegal. He just, he promised Pfizer that if they would build in New London a global research headquarters that the state would clear 90 acres of land around it and that it could be remade the way Pfizer wanted it, which was five star hotel, health club, spa, stuff like that.

GLENN: Sure.

BENEDICT: The city starts going after these homes and some people sell out of fear, some people sell because they want to get the money, but there's a neighborhood that's been there for 100 years, a lot of Italian immigrants. Suzette key lo is the new person in the neighborhood. They don't want to go and when they tell the city they would like to stay and keep their homes, the city's response is simply, well, then we'll just take them. And they condemned these properties even though they are not blighted and so starts the battle.

GLENN: Now, here she is, a woman who has never owned a piece of property before. She, I would imagine just like anybody, would say, "Well, wait a minute, you can't do that." What was it about her that said, "Take a stand"?

BENEDICT: I think the reason I focus so much on her background and who she is is when you realize where she came from, she grew up in a single parent home in the woods of Maine. She was dirt poor as a child, had chocolate water for breakfast, wore socks for mittens. She had never had anything. She has children at a very young age and she's a great mother. She raises her sons. The bottom line is after two failed marriages and a pretty tough life, in her early 40s she finally has something. It's a home. It's that basic thing that I think most Americans want is their own space and a place to live. And she earned it. She paid for it. And she fixed it up and improved it and made it an attractive place and all of a sudden a city comes along and says, "Well, we're going to condemn it because we think we can do something better with that property." And I think that it was, for her it was very personal.

GLENN: Okay. They offered her $70,000. She bought it for $53,000. Why wouldn't she just sell it?

BENEDICT: Well, first of all, when she bought it, it was a mess. I mean, she put a lot of sweat equity into it that I think made it worth more than that. But it was not about that. It was about a place that you could go at night and feel safe, a place where she could start her life over. She loved her neighbors, and I'm not sure, Glenn, you can put a price on having wonderful neighbors in a close-knit community. A lot of communities in America aren't like that anymore. This is a community where most people had been there for -- their families had been there for three generations. Nobody locked their doors. It was safe. That stuff is hard to put a tag on.

GLENN: Okay. Let me play devil's advocate.

BENEDICT: Sure.

GLENN: She did put a price on it. It was $442,000. She finally sold the house for $442,000. If it wasn't about money, if it was about, you know, the neighborhood, et cetera, et cetera, why when they came to her finally and said, "Okay, 442," did she sell it?

BENEDICT: Well, that was after the Supreme Court ruling seven years later and the Supreme Court said you have to get out, she couldn't stay there anymore. At that point the new governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell who had inherited this mess, she basically had her agent go to these holdouts and said, look, open the checkbook no matter what it takes, get them out. And all of them got sums that were in that area. And I think probably they could have even got more when you look at what happened to them and their properties over an eight year battle.

GLENN: Okay. Here is the part, Jeff, that I found in the book interesting because there was no effort to hide their identity, there was no effort on their part to say, "Hey, just keep this between us," but as they started -- as she would lose case after case and they started to -- I mean, let me see if I can find it here in the book. The part where it's in the Supreme Court and they are going back and forth on, you know -- I want to understand this right. It's between O'Connor and Scalia, right?

BENEDICT: Yes.

GLENN: And they are going back and forth and they are having this conversation of, "Wait a minute, I just want to understand the City of New London's position here. You can take property away from somebody if they're paying more taxes and Sandra Day O'Connor's expecting them to say no, and they say yes. And Scalia says, wait a minute, so if you have a Motel 6 and a Ritz Carlton wants to come in, you can take that property from the Motel 6 and the city said, well, yes, if they are paying more property tax, significantly more, yes, we can.

BENEDICT: Yeah, there's this great back story there, Glenn. It's unbelievable. But the lawyers for the city actually had an internal fight over how to answer that question because they knew it was going to come up. They didn't expect it to come from O'Connor, but it did come up from O'Connor and the lawyers didn't agree. And the bottom line was the lead lawyer who argued the case said, "You know what, I'm just going to answer it the way it is because I don't want to get bogged down here." And he shocked O'Connor when he said yes and that's why Scalia jumped in and goes, "Wait, wait, let me just make sure I get this clear. You're saying that you can take from A and give to B if B can pay more taxes?" Yes. And it just, it stunned everyone.

GLENN: So how did they win after this?

BENEDICT: Well, you have to ask Ginsburg and Breyer and Souter.

GLENN: I mean, it's incredible.

BENEDICT: Yeah.

GLENN: So here it is, the case where the government now for money can take your property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness was changed from property for slave reasons. The North didn't want to put property there because they knew then the South would always have this argument, the property's in there and slaves are property. So they changed it to pursuit of happiness at the last minute, but they always meant property. You have a right to life, liberty and property. Now they can take it from you. When she started to lose, tell me about the phone calls and the letters she started to get.

BENEDICT: Oh, it was incredible, Glenn. There were people calling -- when this Supreme Court decision was announced, that day she started getting deluged with phone calls, e-mails, letters from not just around the United States but literally around the world. But many people from the Midwest, from the West, from the South started calling up and saying to her, "Look, welcome up there and surround your house. We'll protect it, we'll defend it." I mean, people, they were so shocked that this could happen. And it's funny because Suzette and I just were in Texas last week and we ran into a lot of people down there who were very familiar with the decision and they are still outraged about it three years later. You can't believe that this could happen in America.

GLENN: I tell you, Jeff, you want a story of stories, you go down in Texas and you do a story on the Republic of Texas and how these people are not going to see a republic destroyed. I tell you, these Texans are serious about their personal rights. They are serious about what's going on in today's world.

BENEDICT: Agreed.

GLENN: So these people, they would offer to come up and she said, "No, no, no, that's quite all right." Was it shocking to you on how open these people were, how open and willing they were to stand up and say, "Bulldozer can run me right over. They ain't coming and touching the house"?

BENEDICT: I think what it -- and what it indicated to me, Glenn, I think I knew this before but I appreciate it a lot more now is how much homeownership and private property rights matter to Americans, to all of us because none of these people knew her. They didn't know the neighborhood. And the fact that so many people were willing to defend it. The reason she told people not to come is quite frankly Suzette was scared. She was terrified at what could happen if that area became -- they could have had a serious uprising there and the governor of Connecticut, I think the reason that the governor took the approach "Let's just spend a lot of money here," they knew they had a pickle on their hands. The Supreme Court was saying they have to go, the city wouldn't back down and there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people who were promising to come down there. Some people were promising to bring guns to defend this house.

GLENN: So what is the message that is applicable to today and the message of empowerment?

BENEDICT: I think it's simple. Whether you are talking about little public board of education in your town, a zoning decision, no matter what it is, when someone tells you it's inevitable, it can't be stopped, it's a done deal, this book tells you that's not true. These are people who had no power and no money and they stood their ground for eight years, and although they lost a 5-4 decision, that effort has in turn cost 43 states in the United States in the last three years to change their eminent domain laws or pass constitutional amendments to ban the Supreme Court decision from applying in those states. If that doesn't give you inspiration to stand up and do the right thing, I don't know what does.

GLENN: The name of the book is Little Pink House: The True Story of Defiance and Courage. It is really a story for our time and you'll find yourself in the story some place. Jeff, thanks a lot, man, I appreciate it.

BENEDICT: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Name of the book again, Little Pink House by Jeff Benedict.

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


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.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

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.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.