Glenn Beck: Misleading headline




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

GLENN: The New York Times has been involved with some gruesomely awesome journalism over the years, I mean gruesome stuff and their coverage of the year has done a great job of playing right into their self‑inflicted stereotypes. The headline in the New York Times on healthcare refers to one question in an 11‑page poll. Surprisingly enough the most favorable result for Obama in the entire questionnaire, even some normally fair liberal bloggers couldn't resist. The headline in the New York Times was wide support for government‑run health. Wide support for government‑run health. Wow. Wide support. The evidence? 72% of respondents say they approve of government providing a public option like Medicare for all, 72%. That's wide support for government‑run healthcare. 72%. How can you possibly argue? What's wrong with you, Beck? Well, let's look at the sample and start there. And some people have already done this. At the moment there are probably a few more Democratic leaning voters than Republican. McCain lost by 7% nationwide but not with the people taking this poll. The New York Times poll, McCain lost by 23 points. So it's a little heavy on the Obama supporters. But it goes further than this. Remember last week when a poll showed that there were about as double as many as conservatives as there were liberals? Forget about Republican/Democrat. Let's just do conservative liberal. Remember, more conservatives than liberal or independent. Double the amount of conservatives over liberals. And remember the time when they are like, "Yeah, you don't ever see that reflected in anything." Oh. Case in point. The New York Times found the exact same thing in February. 36% conservative, 20% liberal. But this time after the stimulus plan and all of the bailouts, somehow magically that has completely changed, now mysteriously. Some might even say gruesomely. They are only 29% conservative and 27% liberal from a 16% lead to a 2% lead since February and you'd think that conservative values would be growing at this time. I mean especially fiscally conservative values.

Now, isn't that enough to take the poll and realize that it's a ridiculous sample and throw it out and start over? No, uh‑uh, no, not for the New York Times. Not, you know, publishing all news that's fit to print and some of it actually read from time to time by a person. Those still trying to defend the poll will undoubtedly say, "Yeah, but still, I mean, you know, okay, so a slight majority of, you know, conservatives or Republicans, you know, back the public option." True, absolute, uh‑huh. Except that the question is built on a completely false premise. What a surprise. Kind of like, what? That story we were telling you about is absolutely true, it happened. Yes, but your reporter wasn't there. He made up everything. Kind of like that. I know that never happens at the New York Times. 72% support number is based on healthcare being... free. Oh. Well, hang on just a second. Stu, will you ask me a question? Do I support healthcare if it's free?

STU: Do you support healthcare if it's free?

GLENN: Yes. Ask me again.

STU: Do you support ‑‑

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Free ‑‑

GLENN: Yes. Yes, if we could somehow or another come up with a magic healthcare bean that sprouted doctors, sprays and surgical procedures for free, who's not there? Of course I'm there. I don't mean free when you go to the doctor's office. I mean no cost to the doctor's office and no cost via taxes, completely free. Healthcare, growing on a magic healthcare beanstalk. So of what possible value is it to even ask that question? Don't you think we should start questioning like the 30% that said no to absolutely free healthcare?

Let me ask you this: Who wants free unlimited private jet access on demand, with no carbon dioxide emissions? Me. Amazing. 95%. I question the 5%, but who cares what the answer is to that question! It's as relevant as, who thinks the government should be able to provide a magical ability to fly? Well, okay. Are you going to ‑‑ I'm just going to be able to fly? Absolutely. Okay, I'll do the flying thing. And then they take out a big staple gun and they staple wings to your back. Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute, I'm suddenly not for the whole flying thing. We know why they ask the question. They ask the question that way to get the result they want for their cute little headline, but when you look deeper, you realize how weak of a foundation they are standing on and they have got a staple gun and fake angel wings in their other hand. When asked if people support the public plan if they have to pay any taxes at all to fund it, the number drops from 72% to 57%. "Well, still that's a majority. That's not too bad." Yeah, yeah. Hang on. Buckle up because this is going to get really bad, really fast. Healthcare in the U.S. costs $650 per month per person. Not everybody in this audience. It is a self‑evident truth that the government would not be able to do the same thing for less cost. But to the New York Times, as you might expect, they probably think, you know, its possible costs would go down, all the while the service is going up because that's the way it always works with the government. But how far down? From $650 per month, how far down? What if I told you that they asked the question in a way that government healthcare would cut costs in half? You'd get this great healthcare and you'd only pay half. Would even the New York Times be that disingenuous to get a result they like? The answer, I'm happy to say, is no. The rest of that ‑‑ that's where the New York Times should just leave it. But the rest of that answer, so I'm not completely disingenuous with that headline, New York Times was not so disingenuous to cut healthcare costs in half. That would be the headline they would run. But if you red down into the article, you'd say, well, wow, that's great, until you got to the line where I said, they were worse than that. They went way further than that. The New York Times actually asked the question as if the government is going to be able to provide healthcare at 94% savings. They ask if you will pay less than $42 a month for government healthcare in taxes. Cost now, $650 per person per month. They ask, what do you say, where are they pulling this number? Are they pulling it directly out of their butt? I'm not ‑‑ I hope they washed that fact. $42 a month. Would you pay $42 a month as a maximum cost? Would you be willing or not willing to pay as much as $500 per year in taxes for universal healthcare? Okay? Surely you have wide ‑‑ what was the headline? Widespread support for government healthcare, when it costs a maximum of $42 a month. No, uh‑uh, uh‑uh. $42 a month, now it's not quite so widespread. The support for healthcare costing every American $42 a month plummets to 43%. From 72 to 43. So a poll that shows 43% of the people support government healthcare if it costs a maximum of $42 a month gets an article in the New York Times with the headline, "Wide support for government‑run healthcare." This is why people hate the New York Times. They wonder why isn't any body reading our paper? Why are we going out of business? No, no, no, you are not going out of business. There is wide support for people reading other things. The same poll that they took shows 63% think government healthcare would make the quality of their own healthcare worse. Where's the headline for that? There is wide support with the government's going to screw it all up. They didn't print that headline. Maybe it's this. I'm sure we'll see this one on. Maybe we'll see this one on ABC tomorrow night. 65% say it would hurt the economy. 65%. They are not willing to pay $42 a month, but they are 72% for free healthcare. If it's free, 72% are for it. But that's, say out of the 72%, 65 ‑‑ where's the headline in how about this headline? 68% say they are concerned that it would limit their access to medical tests and treatment. Where's the headline for that one? Almost 70% say I'm not going to get the healthcare that I need if they do this. How about 77% find their current healthcare to be affordable. 77%. The greatest healthcare system on planet Earth, 77% of us say it's affordable, and the headline reads, "Wide support for government‑run health." Maybe it's this: Almost every important question in the poll that was, you know, around back in the day of Hillary care in the Nineties has less support now than it did then. You might remember Hillary care as the program that miserably failed once the public started hearing the details of it. Where's the headline for that? Less support now with no details than Hillary care with details. How about the headline for that one? How about instead of we're all socialists now, wait, wait, wait, maybe we're not. Remember, all of this comes from a group that is ridiculously skewed towards the left, even for the standards of the New York Times poll. Those numbers I just gave you are ridiculously skewed to the left. Imagine if these numbers were accurate. Imagine if they actually had 40% conservative, 20% liberal, as we now know, that's the makeup of America. Can you imagine that? No, I can't imagine it in the newspaper. I can't imagine it on Fox or on this program. Again this is why people hate the New York Times. I personally just hate it because the crossword thing. I'm a red stator. I can't spell all them fancy words like "Hat." I don't know what ‑‑ hat, what's a hat? H‑O‑T. "No, Pa, that is hot." What's hot? My hat's hot? That's the way it is at my house on Sundays and I'm sure it is yours as well.

11 things you can do to help stop the Great Reset

Photo by Arthur Franklin on Unsplash

The foundation of the American way of life is freedom from tyranny, which can only exist in a nation that defends the rights, powers, and property of individuals and families. Over the past two centuries, the greatest threats to liberty have come from governments, both foreign and domestic. And from the beaches of Normandy to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Americans have repeatedly conquered the challenges placed before them by those seeking to extinguish or limit individual rights.

However, over the past few years, a new, potentially catastrophic danger has emerged, but not primarily from the halls of Congress or state capitols. This threat to freedom has largely emanated from the board rooms of the world’s wealthiest, most powerful corporations, large financial institutions, central banks, and international organizations such as the United Nations and World Economic Forum.

In an attempt to secure vast amounts of wealth and influence over society, corporate CEOs, bankers, and investors, working closely with key government officials, have launched a unified effort to impose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards on most of the industrialized global economy. ESG standards are also referred to as “sustainable investment” or “stakeholder capitalism.” According to a report by KPMG, thousands of companies, located in more than 50 countries, already have ESG systems in place, including 82 percent of large companies in the United States.

ESG standards are designed to create a “great reset of capitalism” and to “revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions.” ESG supporters plan to enact these radical changes by using ESG schemes to alter how businesses and investments are evaluated, so that instead of focusing on the quality of goods and services, profits, and other traditional economic metrics, companies — including financial institutions — are evaluated largely on their commitment to social justice and environmental causes and then assigned scores so that companies can be compared, rewarded, or potentially punished.

Supporters of the movement for a Great Reset also plan on using technology to limit free speech and privacy rights, and they support creating vast new government programs that are designed to transform the Western economy via the Green New Deal, European Green Deal, a federal jobs guarantee, and basic income programs.

Together, the proposals that make up the Great Reset represent the most serious threat to freedom in the West since the fall of the Soviet Union and perhaps since World War II. But there is hope. We can stop the Great Reset, but only if we act quickly and with great conviction.

Below are 11 steps you can take to push back against the Great Reset. These steps represent a powerful bottom-up, grassroots approach to the Great Reset’s top-down plan to remake the world. Although many of these steps won’t be easy for everyone to take, they are essential for ensuring that our children and grandchildren will grow up in a world that protects the rights of individuals and empowers families, rather than wealthy special interests, financial institutions, and large corporations.

1. Live Not by Lies: The time for remaining quiet is over. When you hear or see something that you know to be false, speak up. Be kind, generous, and compassionate, but do not, under any circumstances, allow lies to infect your life. Further, do not support organizations, publications, politicians, schools, or any other institutions that regularly promote false claims.

2. Buy Local: The reason the Great Reset is so powerful is because so many of us have become totally dependent on large multinational corporations. They can be easily manipulated in a way that small, local businesses cannot. Learn to buy local, whenever possible, even if it means spending more money on your purchases. Yes, big corporations offer conveniences and low prices that many small businesses can’t compete with, but those benefits come with a great cost: your freedom.

3. Bank Local: Big financial institutions and banks are driving much of the Great Reset movement. They have started to use their incredible wealth and power to alter society by financing only those businesses who agree to the terms of the Great Reset. This problem is going to get worse, so it’s important to find local banks and credit unions you can trust and who refuse to utilize ESG scores and other discriminatory schemes.

4. Support Local Farms: If you live in an area that has local farms and farmer’s markets, consider buying as many of your groceries as possible from farmers. In the future, food production and distribution are going to change dramatically. It’s important that you support local farmers and build relationships with individuals who can provide you with the goods you need in a time of crisis. One of our main goals must be to make local communities as self-sufficient as possible, and that cannot happen unless we support local farms.

5. Be Vocal: After starting to shop and bank locally, be sure to tell big financial institutions and corporations why they have lost your business. They need to know that their decisions have serious consequences.

6. Run for Local Government: Local and state governments will soon be our most important defense against the Great Reset. Consider running for your local school board, zoning board, or even for a state legislative office. If you don’t feel qualified for these positions, find someone who shares your values and help them run for office. If we don’t have control of our local governments, we won’t be able to halt the Great Reset.

7. Demand That Your State Pass Laws Against ESG Scores: In America, states have a tremendous amount of power to slow the Great Reset and protect their citizens from abuses by large corporations, banks, and international institutions. They can do this by passing laws that make the use of ESG metrics and other, similar systems by financial institutions illegal, when used as a precondition for banking services, financing, investment, etc. ESG scores are, by definition, discriminatory and should be made illegal by state lawmakers who care about protecting their citizens’ rights.

8. Make Responsible Spending a Key Issue for Politicians: In recent years, politicians on the ideological left and right have totally abandoned responsible fiscal policy in favor of vast money printing and loose monetary policies. The many trillions of dollars that have been “printed” in recent years put our economy at risk and are being used to fuel the Great Reset. Without these trillions of dollars of printed money, it would be exceptionally difficult for governments and financial institutions to buy off corporations.

9. Organize Anti-Great Reset Groups: No matter where you live, there are Americans in your community who do not support the Great Reset — Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike. Find like-minded neighbors and organize a local, peaceful resistance. Find people you can trust and agree to support one another when times get tough. Now, more than ever, we need to develop dependable communities.

10. Buy Property and Diversify: Property ownership is going to become increasingly more difficult in the months and years to come. It’s important that you work with a qualified financial adviser to help you figure out the best way to buy property and diversify your investments. Buying hard assets, including real estate and precious metals, could be a good way for you to protect against the Great Reset and a possible financial collapse. If you already own property, resist selling it to large corporations and financial institutions, whenever possible. (This is not financial advice, and I’m not a financial adviser. Talk to an expert you trust before taking action!)

11. Make the Great Reset a Litmus Test for Politicians: Before supporting politicians, find out if they know what the Great Reset is and what they plan to do to stop it. If they aren’t familiar with the Great Reset or don’t have a plan to halt it, then demand that they learn about the Great Reset and develop a proposal to prevent it. Political leaders who refuse to take the Great Reset seriously do not deserve your support. This is the key issue of our generation.

Scott Quiner was transferred over the weekend to a hospital in Texas after doctors in Minnesota threated to terminate life support measures as he battled severe complications from COVID-19. Scott's wife, Anne Quiner, appealed to the courts for a restraining order to prevent the hospital from pulling the plug as she sought a new facility to provide medical care for her husband. Scott was unvaccinated when he tested positive for COVID-19 in late October, 2021.

Anne and her attorney Marjorie Holsten joined "The Glenn Beck Program" Thursday to describe their frantic efforts to halt the hospital's decision to turn off Scott's life support — allegedly because he was unvaccinated — and just how difficult it was to get him the medical treatment he needed.

"It was absolutely stunning," Holsten told Glenn. "[Anne] came in and she has this order, I saw the screenshot from the [online medical] chart that said [Scott] is basically scheduled for execution at noon the following day."

According to Holsten, the Minnesota hospital responded to her appeal for a restraining order by claiming that the "position" to keep Scott alive "is not supported by medical science or Minnesota law. As a result, Mercy will ask the court to issue an order that Mercy has the authority to discontinue Mr. Quiner's ventilator and proceed with his medical care plan."

"The 'medical care plan' was the plan to discontinue the ventilator at noon, which leads to death very shortly. So that was at 10 o'clock, but then at 11 o'clock, before the 12 o'clock execution, the judge did, in fact, sign an order saying the hospital is restrained from pulling the plug," she added.

Anne told Glenn that doctors in Texas were shocked by Scott's condition after he arrived from the Minnesota hospital. Not only had he been given dangerous drugs, he was also found to be “severely malnourished."

"The doctor [in Texas] spent two hours with Scott and when he came back out, he said, 'I don't know how he even made it, how he even survived that other hospital ... but I will do everything I can to try to save his life,'" Anne explained.

"And the doctor [in Texas] said Scott was the most undernourished patient he has ever seen," Holsten added.

"Glenn, we are first bringing this battle to the court of public opinion," Holsten continued. "What we are showing the world is that Scott was near death because of the protocols used in that [Minnesota] hospital, but now he is recovering. He is getting better.... Now, we're not planning a funeral, we're planning for his release."

Watch the video clip below for more details.

If you'd like to help support the Quiner family, please consider making a donation to GiveSendGo.com/Anne.


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 Great Reset is not just an elitist idea — it’s not even a socialist utopian concept. It’s a real-world fascist threat to every American from Wall Street to Main Street. It’s happening now in policies and cultural shifts big and small, obvious and subtle, from environmental promises to corporations going woke. But the mainstream media, global elites, and politicians brushed off the Great Reset as “nothing to see here.” Another myth they push: “The World Economic Forum is just a conference for elites who have no REAL power.”

Glenn Beck first exposed the Great Reset almost two years ago, and the globalist cries of "conspiracy theorist" soon followed. They said he believed the WEF was a “master cabal calling the shots from some evil underground lair.” But Glenn Beck never said that. Instead, he uncovered the true intentions of global leaders in finance and politics by simply highlighting their own words.

This week, the same global elites are doubling down on their agenda at the World Economic Forum’s Davos Agenda virtual event. But still, the global elites — like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey — are trying to downplay the WEF’s influence to stop people like us from interfering with their plans. The oligarchy will prosper in the new world order they’ve designed. You will not.

So Glenn unveils a master chalkboard based on his best-selling new book to outline the threats from globalists and why we must stop their agenda if we hope to keep the precious freedoms we still have.

Watch the full episode of "GlennTV' 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.

Kim Iversen, journalist, YouTuber, and host of "The Kim Iversen Show," reacted to Glenn Beck's appearance last week on "Tucker Carlson Tonight" by conceding that, while the subject of Beck's new book, "The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of Twenty-First-Century Fascism" might at first sound "a little bit loony," closer analysis confirms "this isn't such a crazy conspiracy theory after all."

"Glenn Beck was on Tucker Carlson's show last week touting what has been called a right-wing conspiracy theory and discussing his new book, 'The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of Twenty-First-Century Fascism'," began Iverson on The Hill's "Rising."

"Well, maybe that all sounds a little bit loony — and believe me, I do think Glenn Beck tends to be a loon," she quipped. "But, maybe this isn't such a crazy conspiracy theory after all. And after seeing everything we've seen with the governments enacting all sorts of authoritarian controls and many other conspiracy theories coming true, maybe there's something to be concerned about. So, what is the Great Reset? The name even sounds conspiratorial, but believe it or not, it's a real thing."

Iverson went on to explain exactly who is behind the Great Reset, what their agenda entails, how they are using the COVID-19 pandemic to "to rebuild society in a way the global elites see best fit."

"You'll own nothing and you will be happy: That's what they're saying," Iverson explained. "And with inflation sky high and no signs of it slowing down, they might be right. We are on our way to becoming a nation of renters, but don't worry it's nothing to fear ... don't worry, everything is being done under the premise that this is all ... being done for our own good, the benefit of a collective society, and we will be happy," she added sarcastically.

Iverson concluded by asking, "Who thinks it's a good idea that a bunch of corporate millionaire and billionaires and world leaders are getting together and coming up with what's best for we the little people? I mean, who thinks that that's a really good idea? And who thinks that they are going to be doing it for our benefit? But, of course they're going to frame it like 'Oh, this is good for you. You're going to rent. You'll own nothing and you'll be happy. Don't worry about it' ... When you look at the actual list of partners with the World Economic Forum, they control everything. They control media. They control health. They control business. They control everything, and so then it does become, how do we people fight against that?"

Watch the video clip below to hear Kim Iverson break it down and don' t miss Wednesday night's special episode of "GlennTV" on BlazeTV’s YouTube channel.

Iversen joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to discuss what The Great Reset is and how YOU can help stop it. Watch the video clip from "The Glenn Beck Program" 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.