Glenn Beck: Spineless Specter


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

GLENN: I want to talk to you a little bit about Arlen Specter and the bogus choice that we are being presented. The other thing I want to talk to you about is the swine flu, and I want to play the role of the three advisors if you were the president of the United States and ask you what would you do. But I think I want to start with Arlen Specter. This is so critical. I heard when I was listening to our flagship station here in New York City, WOR as I was driving in, I'm listening to Gambling. John Gambling is talking about Arlen Specter and he makes complete and the co hosts that were on with him, they were all talking and John says, no, the government doesn't need to get more or the Republicans don't need to move, you know, farther left. They just need to reestablish the principles that they have abandoned, they no longer stand for. And one of the co hosts said, you know what, John, I don't think most people are conservative. Because he said they are conservative and they were using, I think the wrong terms. And the co host said, John, you know what I think. Most people, they would just like some fiscal responsibility and then liberal freedom. And I was hoping that somebody would point this out and nobody did, but I think this is the typical conversation that is happening all around the country right now and it's frustrating to everybody involved because they were all right. Everybody that was in that conversation was right, but they're arguing because the terms no longer mean anything solid. They mean something different to everybody. I learned this a long time ago from my father actually. He said to me when we were having a conversation about God. He said, well, you know, Glenn, god has too many different meanings. It just, you can't really have a conversation about God with people because you will see god differently than I see God and we'll see God differently than somebody who is a Buddhist will see God. So God doesn't mean the same thing because of our upbringing, because of the culture that we grow up in, et cetera, et cetera. He said, you really want to be able to have a "Start from scratch" conversation about God, you need to call him first cause because nobody calls him first cause. But that's what he is. How did the Earth start, how did the universe, what was first cause. Now I can talk to somebody who doesn't believe in God, somebody who's deeply religious, somebody who sees God in a completely different way. I can talk to all of them, first cause. And I don't get caught up in all the petty arguments of, "Well, you just belong in some sort of being," you don't get caught up in it what we're talking about, what is the first thing that happened? What is first cause?

So let's have a first cause kind of conversation here about our political system. Everybody is caught in the trap of right, left, conservative, liberal and Democrat/Republican. Forget about that and I'll tell you why we have to forget about it. Because it has been so distorted and so it is my opinion. I don't have anything to back this up historically speaking yet, but I'm looking for it. It is my opinion that the progressive movement intentionally latched onto liberal because it took classic liberalism then out of the picture. And that is the problem with our system right now. That is the frustration. I contend most Americans are classic liberals. How many in this audience even know what a classic liberal is? In this audience we probably have the highest percentage. Any of talk radio have the highest percentage would know what a classic liberal is. The reason why most people don't know what a classic liberal is, is because of the progressive movement. It was distorted. The progressives distorted liberalism. Classic liberal basically is a libertarian. It is somebody who believes in personal responsibility. It is somebody who believes in the natural rights of man. It is somebody who believes in the self as the first cause or not first cause but the determining factor. It believes in small government. But the progressives latched onto that, and it was distorted. And when they did that and I don't know when they did it and I don't know who did it and I don't know how it came to be, but I will find the answer on that. I believe it was by design and here's why I believe it was by design. Because once you destroy the argument or destroy the place at the table of the classic liberal, of the libertarian, then you're only having a discussion between the same thing, just different paint color.

Let me describe it as this. I believe our system has become Kentucky Fried Chicken and Popeye's. Now, I personally like Popeye's. I like the service at Kentucky Fried Chicken. So there are times that I can't take the people just throwing the food at me and yelling at me. So I'm going to go to Kentucky Fried Chicken. But there are other times that I'm like, I don't like the chicken as much. It's better chicken at Popeye's. And this is the argument that we have. We have two choices between Kentucky Fried Chicken and Popeye's. What a lot of Americans want is a hamburger. Kentucky Fried Chicken, if you will, took the hamburger choice away. They started calling themselves Kentucky Fried Hamburgers and so now people are saying, you want a hamburger? Well, you should be over here having chicken. No, no, no, you're eating chicken, too. "No, I'm not. I'm eating a hamburger, and we make the best hamburgers ever." And then pretty soon Popeye says, "We're making hamburgers as well." No, that's chicken, too. That's just called a chicken tender. "Nope, it's a hamburger and ours is flame broiled." No, it's not. You put it in oil. This is clearly fried. "No, that's Kentucky Fried Chicken." No. Neither of you guys are serving hamburgers! I just want a hamburger, please. This is what's happening. We're arguing about chicken places. When the real moment of revelation is when America steps back and goes, "Wait a minute. My gosh, it is chicken. Soylent Green! It's chicken! As soon as somebody stands at the counter and says, "Where's the beef!" Then we'll be able to have an honest conversation in America about Arlen Specter. But you can't have an honest conversation about Arlen Specter because he is the quintessential example of chicken in both houses. He was serving people chicken who wanted steak, but they were convinced that it was either chicken or that, you don't really want steak. I mean, we can't we may not even eat. If we don't take this chicken, we may not ever eat. No, really, there is another choice. We can stop by the hamburger store on the way. "No, no, only chicken. We must have this chicken and pretend that it's beef." I don't think so. That's a waste of your food choice. You get to choose three times a day. "Chicken. Chicken and pretend that it's beef."

Here's what's happening. The chicken, if you will, is progressivism. It is big government, lots of spending, lots of control. And whether that control is how much you pollute, you know, carbon dioxide and the control is cap and trade or the control is how much or where you can get your healthcare and how much you pay into it, there's control and big government on the other side. And then over here with the other chicken place where they swear it's beef, they give you big, gigantic government in prescription drugs, they give you big gigantic government in the control of the, all of the defense and all of the control of how we fight our foreign policy but yet we never really win over here. We never really use everything we have, which is almost like the other chicken place, we don't really use everything we have. You have the big control of the, well, we've got to have all of these eavesdropping things, all of these different things that we've got to have, we've got to have for our security over here. Oh, no, we have to have all the controls on the banks because, well, we have to have all this security and then pretty soon the other chicken place is saying, yeah, we have to have all those controls on the banks for your security as well. And pretty soon they're both saying exactly the same thing. There hasn't been a change. There hasn't been a change. There's not going to be a change. You are going to continue to eat chicken. So let's reintroduce the hamburger joint because as we all know, America is not known for Kentucky Fried Chicken. While it's on the menu and it is a choice, that's not what made American fast food. What made American fast food and what changed the world was McDonald's. So let's talk about the glorious McDonald's for a second. McDonald's is libertarianism. McDonald's is our founding fathers. McDonald's is the Constitution. McDonald's is natural law and nature's god. It's not coincidence that they named I started the monologue with first cause. It's not a coincidence that the founders always talked about nature's god and the laws of nature because they said those are immovable. No matter how you see God, no matter what it is, doesn't matter if you're a Jew, Christian or a Muslim, nature's god. He endows everyone with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It was originally life, liberty and property. They changed it to not help slave states. Of course, we don't learn that anymore but we certainly don't learn about nature's god anymore. Progressives believe that God is inconsequential, he does not give you rights. Progressives do not believe in the natural laws of God, in nature's god, in nature's laws. They do not believe you are born with certain inalienable rights. This is where collectivism comes. Whatever is good for the collective, whatever is best for the state, whatever it is this person has to do to help everyone else, forced help. This is where universal healthcare comes from. You are un American if you don't do this. This is where if you're against the war, you're un American if you speak out against the war. It's the collective mindset.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.