Glenn Beck: Porn, yes..NYT no

GLENN: We're just trying to make a list. Chris, help us out on this. We're just trying to make a list because I told you before that I think the newspapers are going to get a bailout because I mean, they've already got the precedent. It's PBS. And we see how well that works. There's no conflict of interest there. And newspapers are falling apart and they're going to be too big and important to fail. That's free speech. That's a free press. That's a cornerstone. We don't have free press. We've got to have that. The government will absolutely come in and bail these things out and then they will have the free press, not so free anymore, right in their back pockets. The only ones that won't be bailed out will be talk radio -- mark my words: Media will get bailouts because it's too important, but talk radio will get more restrictions. They will try to kill the only thing that will actually stand up against the government. They will try to kill that, but they will help things like the New York Times, MSNBC through GE. Are you kidding me? That's a no-brainer.

All right. So now here's the latest bailout. The porn industry. The porn industry is coming to Washington. They are saying they want a bailout because times are tough. And I would say they have fallen on hard times but that's a different story and a different show, quite honestly. So things are tough and they are losing money and they really need -- there are just so many -- oh, it's really, it's very tough to do this story. My head's hurting from all the stuff I'm editing out right now, all the great jokes. Okay, so -- Stu, will you please do this? Just take this story for just a second, please? Just tell this story in a straight way because I don't think I'm capable of doing it. It's hurting. It is. See, I've got a joke there.

STU: We need to bail out, out of this story.

GLENN: Okay, so here's the thing. So I was thinking about this story about government bailout of the porn industry and I'm thinking, why not? Who are you to judge? What? You're going to -- all those college women? Oh, my gosh, how horrible of you. They're working, they're struggling. Some of them are working hard and... so anyway, here you have all of these poor people that are just doing what they can just to make ends... I can't even -- so then you have the government saying we can't do that, and you know that Obama is looking for the best bang for the...

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: All right. So anyway, that led me to... what? I think you can't make the case against it because what's the difference between porn and the New York Times? I don't think there's any difference. Tell me, you read the New York Times; you read pornography. You feel dirty after doing both, don't you?

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Pornography, not my values. New York Times, not my values.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Same credibility on stories about politicians, in porn and in the New York Times. I have to stop there because I can't think of any that I can actually say on the air now. But I think they are the same.

STU: Well, more people use it online. I think that goes for both.

GLENN: More people use it online.

STU: Right?

GLENN: That's why they're both struggling.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Because people can get their news in another way.

STU: There are differences though, I think. Like I think when you throw out, when you're done with porn, you stash it under the bed. You put it in your sock drawer. When you're done with the Times, it goes in the fireplace or it goes down the trash chute. Porn, as far as I know, porn has never given out a troop location.

GLENN: So now you are making the case that porn may actually be better than the New York Times. That may be a better investment than the New York Times.

STU: Yeah, I think so. I mean, is there --

GLENN: Never sold out, I don't know any pornographer or any -- I just model, what do you call -- any --

STU: An entertainer.

GLENN: Any entertainers that have sold our country out. In fact, they are entertaining the troops. The New York Times like -- I mean, the troops like porn more than they like the New York Times. If I sent a package over to many of the troops and they opened them up and I sent them the New York Times, would they think, what the hell am I even fighting for? Now, if I did that with porn, a lot of them would say, "I know what I'm fighting for." If I sent porn over to the Middle East, would it make the enemy crazy nut job if they intercepted that package, opened it up and it was a bunch of porno magazines? Yes. If I sent them a bunch of New York Times and they open it up, you know, and it was like Hamas opening it up, it would be like, "Oh, no, they need to receive this," they would forward it on.

STU: So you are saying mail delivery in the Middle East, it is more -- yeah, I think.

GLENN: I think porn shows much more of an enemy.

STU: I think this is a fairly good --

GLENN: I think we should make the case that the porn should get the bailout but the newspapers should not. Okay, common sense. We've solved yet another problem in America. Porn lives; the New York Times dies.


The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?