UN to tax Americans?

GLENN BECK PROGRAM


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

BECK: I said a year ago, Pat, and I don't know if you've noticed it in the last four weeks, I said a year ago birth pains. Condoleezza Rice said, I believe on this program, we are seeing birth pains in the Middle East and I said at that time, that word is, A, biblical in nature. It has a lot of stuff on prophecy involved with it. But beyond that. It implies we're giving birth -- there's an event at the end and it also implies that things happen and start to happen more and more rapidly and they get stronger. Have you noticed, Pat, in the last four weeks how much some of the stuff that was just theory, that you and I talked about a year ago, two years ago, three years ago is now starting to unfold and come out and it's all, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, one right after another?

GRAY: Uh-huh, yeah. I never would have believed that President Bush would get behind the Law of the Sea Treaty. I never would have believed in a million years that President Bush would circumvent U.S. sovereignty by taking Texas to court in this, you know, Jose Medellin case, this vicious brutal rapist and killer that he's fighting the State of Texas in international courts over it.



Glenn is seen here with Pat Gray

GLENN: Well, it's a lose-lose situation. If the President loses, then -- I mean, it's a lose-lose situation if you're a federalist. Then what it means is you've got a weak federal government. You've got a government probably more in line with what the founding fathers wanted that Texas and all of the states have a right to say no to the federal government. You go ahead and sign that little global warming treaty; not for us.

GRAY: Right. Well, that's the way it should be.

GLENN: Yeah, I know it should be, but that's not -- if you are somebody who believes in a strong federal government, that is -- and he does, that's why he's fighting it as well. If he loses, the federal government loses a lot of its power in an unbelievable framework. If he wins, the Constitution loses because now courts, out-of-country courts are above our Supreme Court.

But let's talk about the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is so frightening, it makes the Medellin case look like, you know, nursery school.

GRAY: Yeah.

GLENN: This is -- and fill in any places here, Pat, where I've got it wrong. This passed yesterday in committee in the Senate and it's going to the full Senate for a vote, and Bush will sign it. Unless Americans stand up and call their senators right now, this thing is going to go -- this is going to pass.

GRAY: It will become law. It will become part of the Constitution.

GLENN: Constitution. It's not part of the law. It's Constitution.

GRAY: Yes.

GLENN: If they sign this thing and ratify it. And what it is is it gives power to the UN to control outline mineral rights, all oceans, all air above the oceans. It creates something called the Enterprise that if -- let's say Exxon says I want to go drill for -- well, what's happening now? China is going to drill in between Florida and Cuba. So let's say we said we wanted to -- I know it's crazy. We would never do this. We want to actually go look for oil under the water and we would have to go to the UN and Exxon would have to say to the Enterprise, we have two sites they want to drill; we believe there's this amount of oil and here's all of the research on it. The Enterprise says, okay, let us look into it. They come back, come back, Exxon. They come back to the Enterprise which is a UN organization and the Enterprise says, great, you know what? You can have Site A, we're going to take Site B and here's the added extra bonus for you, Exxon. "You have to drill our site for us using your money, your equipment and everything else and we get everything that you take out."

GRAY: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And any dispute involving, let's say the United States and Cuba or the United States and China go to this new court system they are setting up for the Law of the Sea Treaty and there's going to be, I think 22, 22 magistrates on it. We have no guarantee that we'll even get one of those magistrates.

Now, in a dispute between the United States and Cuba or the U.S. and China, who do you think the guys from Uganda and Yemen are going to side with?

GLENN: Yeah.

GRAY: Certainly not us.

GLENN: This is the way they take our wealth from us.

GRAY: Yeah.

GLENN: Any ships that go across, they can levy fines, fees, taxes. If you want to go ahead and fly in the air above water, they can assign taxes, fees, and fines. This is the first ever door that opens our Constitution up for the UN to walk right in and tax the American people.

GRAY: You bet. Well, and this was written with keeping nuclear submarines out of the water in mind. This was written with the intent that the oceans would only be used for peaceful purposes.

GLENN: Yeah.

GRAY: You could never use these for war. So, you know, being a war machine, a nuclear sub can be kept out of the water and the military says, oh, they won't enforce that. Uh-huh, we're talking about the UN.

GLENN: Of course they will. Of course they will.

GRAY: Of course they will. Of course they will.

GLENN: You don't think Russia and China -- listen, I'm telling you. Teach your kids how to speak Chinese because they are going to rule the world within 50 years.

GRAY: Sooner than that.

GLENN: Well, if we don't wake up, it will be in the next five years, for the love of Pete. It is amazing to me how few people -- you know, I think one of the problems is -- and help me out on this, Pat. Maybe I'm giving them too much of a bone. I've talked to senators and they are like, yeah, well, I'm not really sure because the language has really kind of changed. This is something that a lot of senators are just kind of like going, well, I think it's okay, and I've got the word from so-and-so and I'm -- in fact, let me give you this. This came in from a listener. They sent it to me. They wrote to Bob Casey, their senator, and they said, do not sign the Law of the Sea Treaty. He said, thanks for taking the time to contact me regarding the United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about matters of interest to them. He goes into how it started an everything else. Some of my constituents have reservations about the United States ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty and I take those concerns seriously. As a member of the Senate foreign relations committee, I pledge to study this issue carefully and listen to my colleagues and legal experts before voting to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration.

Excuse me? How about listening to your constituents, Senator?

GRAY: Yeah. Yeah. Do all U.S. senators have the same person writing their responses to their constituents? Because that sounds a lot like Kay Bailey Hutchison's responses to hers. It's ridiculous! When in doubt, vote it out, especially where the UN is concerned.

GLENN: When in doubt, how can you possibly be in doubt? How can you be in doubt?

GRAY: But if you think the language has changed or if you've heard maybe it's changed, vote against it! If there's any doubt where the UN is concerned -- and there isn't, you're right. But if you think there is, you vote against it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean --

GREY: That's just good, decent American constitutional thinking right there.

GLENN: Especially when it's a treaty.

GRAY: Yeah.

GLENN: It becomes the -- most people don't understand that. It is -- it fuses with the Constitution.

GRAY: That's right.

GLENN: I mean, you don't go backwards. You know, prohibition, it's a good idea. Oh, wow, that was a bad idea; we should get out of it. Once a treaty is ratified and signed, it fuses with the Constitution. It's really --

GRAY: People might think, we're the UN already, what's the big deal. In this Law of the Sea Treaty, we're only one of 140 countries and unlike other UN issues, there's no security council here. We don't have any permanent status, any veto power at all. It's us against 140. How many of those 140 are our friends? Maybe Britain? Maybe Israel? The rest are going to be against us?

GLENN: Let me just leave it with what Ronald Reagan believed, and he believed this is the first step into one world government. This is it. This is it. And you know what? They tried to get it through over and over and over again and they keep trying to change the language to make it good. It's not good. Get out. Do not sign the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Pat, thanks, appreciate it. 

END TRANSCRIPT

In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for OutKick.com, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

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.

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.