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.

If there is any doubt about the radical agenda in our school systems, this California teacher just put that to bed. She asked to remain anonymous and courageously agreed to join Glenn on radio Wednesday and provided a document all about the mandatory training the teachers in her school district all had to complete.

They are not required to implement the training in actual curriculum but they are encouraged to talk to their kids about it. She asked colleagues what they thought about the training and many said that it was not sitting right with them but maybe it was because they had racist tendencies themselves.

Read the full document here:

Howtotalkabout race.pdf

Here's how the conversation went:


Teacher Speaks Out | Five OUTRAGEOUS "Critical Race Theory" Lessons Unions Want to Teach your Kids youtu.be

Once again, the media has failed to carry out even the most cursory investigation when it comes to allegations against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). But investigative journalist David Steinberg has been piecing together "32 new, verifiable, archived pieces of evidence" that indicate Omar conducted the "most extensive spree of state and federal felonies by an elected congressperson in U.S. history."

Steinberg joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail how the pieces fit together in his latest report available on TheBlaze.com.

"It's over," Steinberg told Glenn. "There's really nothing left. It's all ... the publicly available documentation that anyone would need to be convinced that, for eight years, [Omar] married her brother to commit immigration fraud. And this marriage fraud also was in the service of education fraud/student loan fraud. And along the line, we have evidence, that she filed at least two years of fraudulent tax returns, possibly eight [years]. We have evidence that she perjured herself eight times during her 2017 divorce from this man. And along the way, of course, we know she was living in public housing. We also know she was likely receiving subsidized child care.

"Essentially, almost everything she put her name on for eight years was perjury or fraud. And it all adds up to likely the most extensive spree of state and federal felonies by an elected congressperson in U.S. history. I really have no other way to put it. That's how big this is."

Watch the video below to get the 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 extreme-left idea that gender is "fluid" is a complete denial of science, according to sex researcher and neuroscientist Dr. Debra Soh.

Dr. Soh joined Glenn Beck on his latest podcast to talk about her new book, "THE END OF GENDER: Debunking the Myths about Sex & Identity in Our Society" and to offer a hard dose of objective truth about gender and sexual orientation based on scientific facts.

She also explained why she had to leave academia to be able to speak freely about sex and identity, and how — despite being a liberal — the far-left is actively trying to cancel her for saying there are biological differences between men and women.

Watch the video clip below or find the full episode of the "Glenn Beck Podcast with Dr. Debra Soh here.

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.

In February 2020, Glenn Beck and his research team uncovered an alleged multi-billion dollar money laundering scheme which lead to a missing $1.8 billion in U.S. aid sent to Ukraine during the Obama administration, all of which pointed to Igor Kolomoisky, the corrupt Ukrainian billionaire at the center of it all.

If you missed Glenn's February special, "Ukraine: The Final Piece," you can find it here.

This week, the FBI raided the offices of U.S. companies owned by Kolomoisky in Cleveland and Miami. Additionally, the Department of Justice accused the Ukrainian oligarch of stealing billions of dollars from PrivatBank and then laundering the money through a network of companies all over the world. Kolomoisky and partner, Hennadiy Boholyubov, owned PrivatBank until December 2016, when Ukraine nationalized the bank because billions of dollars had gone missing.

Kolomoisky has ties to the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, former Burisma board member Hunter Biden, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, whose phone call with President Donald Trump was central to the Democrats' now-failed impeachment attempt.

On the radio program Friday, Glenn spoke with chief researcher Jason Buttrill about these latest developments.

"Yeah, $1.8 billion of [taxpayer] money that just vanished has now been found, or at least part of it, in Miami and Cleveland," Glenn said.

"I can't believe it's taken this long," Jason responded. "You said in February that [Kolomoisky] was the key to finding out where the money went. And we're talking about $1.8 billion dollars — $1.8 billion! That could finance a small war."

"That money went to PrivatBank — that's Kolomoisky's bank," he continued. "It was later nationalized after they found out all this money was mysteriously going missing. But it went through a bank in Cypress then, poof, it was laundered all over the world. [...] We also showed, in one of the previous shows, that there were wire transfers going from Burisma, which Kolomoisky is the managing principal of, to Hunter Biden."

Glenn and Jason also talked about recent reports from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleging ties between American revolutionaries, such as Antifa, and Marxist terrorists in Syria, which BlazeTV exposed back in June. Find out more here.

Watch the video below for more 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.