Glenn Beck: What do Americans want?

Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

GLENN: That's right, it is Friday. So you can ask Glenn anything. Number is 888-727-BECK, 888-727-BECK. I just wanted to go over some of these polls. This is from the Fox News dynamic poll, and I'm going to show these and tie these all together tonight at 5:00, but let me just give you a thumbnail sketch of some of these. What kind of government, what kind of government are you for? What kind of government are you for? Lower taxes, smaller government, 55%. That's up from 52% in 2006. So now 55% of Americans. It's growing the other direction. They want smaller government, lower taxes. Growing number. Higher taxes, bigger government, 35%. So why are we getting a bigger government and higher taxes if 35% say they don't want it? Is raising taxes a good idea in a bad economy? 69% say this is a bad idea to raise taxes in a bad economy. 69%. If you look at across the board, you have Democrats saying 58% it's a bad idea, Republicans saying by 86% it's a bad idea, and independents saying 66%. Don't raise taxes in a bad economy. It's a bad idea. Should we raise taxes on the rich? Remember, 69% say it's a bad idea. Should we raise taxes on the rich, 66% say yes. How is that possible? Because it's not you. Because it's not you. You don't see yourself as wealthy. This is why I say if we would solve one issue, if we would marry ourselves to one principle: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, we would solve almost all of our problems. Is it a bad idea for the economy? Yep. Should we do it? Nope. What kind of government do you want? Lower taxes, smaller government. Should we raise taxes on the rich? Yes.

This one goes to this question, way down, Question 977: Rich people are most likely to be, A, generous; B, greedy; or C, depends. Generous is at 36%. Greedy is at 36%. Depends is at 25. It should be "Depends." It should be -- well, there's always 11% stupid people. It should be 89% depends. Being rich does not make you greedy or generous. It makes you rich. Your principles make you greedy or generous. This shows you how we can just hate the rich, just hate them. Do you agree with the old adage -- now listen to this: Should we raise the taxes on the rich? Again 66% say yes. Do you agree with the old adage, "You cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor." Got it? Do you agree you can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor? In other words, redistribution of wealth. Can you take it from one group and give it to the other and make them rich? Do you agree or disagree? 72% of Americans agree. Now, you can look at that and say, wow, 72% of Americans agree with that. Or you can look at that and say, "Only 72% agree that you can't make the poor rich by making the rich poor?" And here's the kicker on this. You're rich if your annual income is $501,000 and over, 25%; $250,000 to 500,000, 20%; $151,000 to $250,000, 13%; $76,000 to $150,000, 18%. Almost 20% say you're rich if you make a dollar over $76,000. 18%. You're rich if your annual income is under $75,000, 9%. So it's a pretty even spread really. It's a pretty even spread almost all the way across. Really, we're all rich except those under $75,000. Only 9% say that. But almost 20% say at everything else. So why are we going for the $250,000? Why wouldn't we just go to $76,000? Again this shows it's just not me. Anybody but me, and here's the -- here's the last one I wanted to give. Are the government actions working? Actually there's two other. Are the government actions working? Yes, they would have been a lot worse. 38%. No. Without the action from the government the economy would be the same or even better: 44%. 44% to 38%. The rest don't have any idea, but a majority of us say we would have been better off had they not done anything. That's staggering to me because that's not what you see reflected on the news. That's not what you see anywhere. And the last one: Do you want bigger government, smaller government? Maybe this has something to do with that number where we say we want a smaller government and lower taxes. Is it possible that the United States of America could go bankrupt? Is it possible that the United States of America could go bankrupt? 61% say yes.


FOX News Poll: A Bankrupt United States

Sixty-one percent of Americans believe it is possible the United States government could end up bankrupt.

STU: Okay, I have a couple of questions. Because I'm going through, as you're doing this, I'm trying to figure out, I don't understand the people of America. First of all, the 64%, is that because you say "Possible" and not "Likely"?

GLENN: For bankruptcy?

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Yes. Is it possible in theory? Long term --

GLENN: The real answer is no.

STU: Probably not. I mean, that's --

GLENN: No, no, not probably. The real answer is --

STU: You could always print.

GLENN: Yes, you can print. That stops you from going bankrupt.

STU: But let me ask you this question: 72% say that they agree with the adage you cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor. 72%.


STU: Agree with that.


STU: If you are going to convert that into a policy, you would say that would be taxing the rich to give to the poor.

GLENN: Yes, redistribution of wealth.

STU: Right. So but then you ask the same group of people, do you support raising taxes on those earning over $250,000 and lowering taxes on everyone else, 66% support that.


STU: Make sense of that for me.

GLENN: Okay. Here it is. People know that redistribution of wealth does not work. They get it. You cannot make a poor man wealthy by making a wealthy man poor. 70 something percent understand that that just can't be done. But can I put my hands into the pockets of a wealthy man? Does he have too much cash? Absolutely. So they believe that, yes, I could put my hands into the pocket and give that money to -- I'll take that money from anybody but me. You notice the questions are worded, "Do you believe we should tax the wealthy." Yes, we should tax the wealthy. Then a few questions later, who are the wealthy? Anybody but me.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Anybody but me. It's almost evenly distributed. And if you see, there's nobody that should say $75,000 is wealthy. That's not wealthy in America today. $75,000, a household making $75,000, that's a wealthy household? I mean --

STU: I mean, it's not bad but it's not wealthy.

GLENN: No, but that just shows that the people at the bottom of the ladder look at anybody who is making more than they are as wealthy. The people in the middle of the ladder look at people and say you are the middle of the ladder, you are $50,000, you look at the people making $100,000 as wealthy. If you are making $100,000, you look at the people making $250,000. If you are making $250,000, you are looking at the people saying a millionaire. If you are making a million, you say $5 million. If you make $5 million, you are looking at Warren Buffett. I mean, it's never you that's wealthy.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And again if we would just adopt the adage of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. But see, the deal is that nobody anymore actually believes -- I shouldn't say this. A growing number of Americans no longer believe they can be wealthy. They have bought into the lies of politicians. They have bought into the lies of the media. They have bought into the lies of people with an agenda, that you're going to be kept down, you'll never make it, things will never change, you can't do it.


This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:

Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:

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 former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, came up with "7 Pillars of Color Revolution," a list of seven steps needed to incite the type of revolution used to upend Eastern European countries like Ukraine and Georgia in the past two decades. On his TV special this week, Glenn Beck broke down the seven steps and showed how they're happening right now in America.

Here are McFaul's seven steps:

1. Semi-autocratic regime (not fully autocratic) – provides opportunity to call incumbent leader "fascist"

2. Appearance of unpopular president or incumbent leader

3. United and organized opposition – Antifa, BLM

4. Effective system to convince the public (well before the election) of voter fraud

5. Compliant media to push voter fraud narrative

6. Political opposition organization able to mobilize "thousands to millions in the streets"

7. Division among military and police

Glenn explained each "pillar," offering examples and evidence of how the Obama administration laid out the plan for an Eastern European style revolution in order to completely upend the American system.

Last month, McFaul made a obvious attempt to downplay his "color revolutions" plan with the following tweet:

Two weeks later, he appeared to celebrate step seven of his plan in this now-deleted tweet:

As Glenn explains in this clip, the Obama administration's "7 Pillars of Color Revolution" are all playing out – just weeks before President Donald Trump takes on Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the November election.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:

Watch the full special "CIVIL WAR: The Way America Could End in 2020" here.

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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Start your free trial and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code BANTHIS.

Modern eugenics: Will Christians fight this deadly movement?

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash

Last month, without much fanfare, a new research paper disclosed that 94 percent of Belgian physicians support the killing of new-born babies after birth if they are diagnosed with a disability.

A shocking revelation indeed that did not receive the attention it demanded. Consider this along with parents who believe that if their unborn babies are pre-diagnosed with a disability, they would choose to abort their child. Upwards of 70 percent of mothers whose children are given a prenatal disability diagnosis, such as Down Syndrome, abort to avoid the possibility of being burdened with caring for a disabled child.

This disdain for the disabled hits close to home for me. In 1997, my family received a letter from Michael Schiavo, the husband of my sister, Terri Schiavo, informing us that he intended to petition a court to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.

For those who do not remember, in 1990, at the age of 26, Terri experienced a still-unexplained collapse while at home with Michael, who subsequently became her legal guardian. Terri required only love and care, food and water via feeding tube since she had difficulty swallowing as a result of her brain injury. Nonetheless, Michael's petition was successful, and Terri's life was intentionally ended in 2005 by depriving her of food and water, causing her to die from dehydration and starvation. It took almost two excruciating weeks.

Prior to my sister's predicament, the biases that existed towards persons with disabilities had been invisible to me. Since then, I have come to learn the dark history of deadly discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Indeed, some 20 years prior to Germany's T4 eugenics movement, where upwards of 200,000 German citizens were targeted and killed because of their physical or mental disability, the United States was experiencing its own eugenics movement.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas documented some of this history in his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Justice Thomas describes how eugenics became part of the academic curriculum being taught in upwards of 400 American universities and colleges.

It was not solely race that was the target of the U.S. eugenics movement. Eugenicists also targeted the institutionalized due to incurable illness, the physically and cognitively disabled, the elderly, and those with medical dependency.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which wiped out pro-life laws in nearly every state and opened the floodgates to abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Since then, 60 million children have been killed. Abortion as we know it today has become a vehicle for a modern-day eugenics program.

Since the Catholic Church was established, the Truth of Christ was the greatest shield against these types of attacks on the human person and the best weapon in the fight for equality and justice. Tragically, however, for several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by modernist clergy, creating disorder and confusion among the laity, perverting the teachings of the Church and pushing a reckless supposed “social justice" agenda.

My family witnessed this firsthand during Terri's case. Church teaching is clear: it is our moral obligation to provide care for the cognitively disabled like Terri. However, Bishop Robert Lynch, who was the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, during Terri's case, offered no support and was derelict in his duties during the fight for Terri's life.

Bishop Lynch had an obligation to use his position to protect Terri from the people trying to kill her and to uphold Church teaching. Indeed, it was not only the silence of Bishop Lynch but that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which also remained silent despite my family's pleas for help, that contributed to Terri being needlessly starved and dehydrated to death.

My family's experience, sadly, has turned out to be more of the rule than the exception. Consider what happened to Michael Hickson. Hickson was a 36-year-old, brain-injured person admitted to a Texas hospital after contracting COVID-19. Incredibly—and against the wishes of Michael's wife—the hospital decided not to treat Michael because they arbitrarily decided that his “quality of life" was “unacceptably low" due to his pre-existing disability. Michael died within a week once the decision not to treat him was imposed upon him despite the efforts of his wife to obtain basic care for her husband.

During my sister's case and our advocacy work with patients and their families, it would have been helpful to have a unified voice coming from our clergy consistently supporting the lives of our medically vulnerable. We desperately need to see faithful Catholic pastoral witness that confounds the expectations of the elite by pointing to Jesus Christ and the moral law.

A Church that appears more concerned with baptizing the latest social and political movements is a Church that may appear to be “relevant," but one that may also find itself swallowed up by the preoccupations of our time.

As Catholics, we know all too well the reluctance of priests to preach on issues of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other pro-life issues. We have heard that the Church cannot risk becoming too political.

At the same time, some within the Church are now openly supporting Black Lives Matter, an organization that openly declares itself hostile to the family, to moral norms as taught by the Church, and whose founders embrace the deadly ideology of Marxism.

For example, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, knelt in prayer with a cardboard sign asserting his support for this ideology.

Recently, during an online liturgy of the mass, Fr. Kenneth Boller at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York, led the congregation with what appears to sound like questions affirming the BLM agenda. Moreover, while reading these questions, pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, assumed victims of racial injustice, were placed on the altar of St. Francis Xavier Church, a place typically reserved for Saints of the Catholic Church.

Contrast these two stories with what happened in the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, where Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Church fell victim to the ire of Bishop Timothy Doherty. Fr. Rothrock used strong language in his weekly church bulletin criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and its organizers. Consequently, Bishop Doherty suspended Fr. Rothrock from public ministry.

In 1972, Pope Pius VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." It seems that too many of our clergy today are enjoying the smell.

I encourage all who are concerned about the human right to life and about Christ-centered reforms in our culture and our Church to raise your voices for pastoral leadership in every area of our shared lives as Christian people.

Bobby Schindler is a Senior Fellow with Americans United for Life, Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.