Glenn Beck: Healthcare or Freedom grab?


Glenn Beck's Common Sense


Now available in book stores nationwide...

The media's saying the plan's going to cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. By the way, you didn't know this was happening? Maybe this is the first time you heard it because they did this while you were asleep! Using the Congressional Budget Office's numbers, which seem like a lot for something that's supposed to be free ‑‑ but maybe that's just me ‑‑ $1 trillion for this free healthcare. But the problem is it's not even close to true. When you hear $1 trillion over 10 years, what do you think? What do you think? Do you think $100 billion a year, right? No. No, you've got to think like a congressman or a senator or a slime ball. That's what the left is hoping that you're thinking. It's actually far higher than that, and the reason is just like when you have liver failure on universal healthcare, most of the programs in the bill are on a long waiting list. But we are the world! We are the children! And Michael Jackson's dead. Should we talk about that some more?

The long waiting list of the programs in this bill, typical government delay. They don't actually kick in for a few years. Only 17% of the spending comes in in the first five years. 83% comes in in the second five years. So only 17% of us can have the frickin' sniffles! But once everything has kicked in, we're going to make the world a better place, just you and me. Once everything kicks in, the plan actually costs $230 billion a year, yet another lie from Washington. The cost rises every year.

Also, this cost of $230 billion a year does not include administrative costs. It doesn't account for the cost of implementing the program. It doesn't count the effects on other spending, not to mention the aspirin or the Advil that the millionaire won't give you now! So how do you pay for something that is so unbelievably free and yet so expensive? By using the only two answers these clowns ‑‑ I could call them so much more than that ‑‑ the only two answers that they ever have: One, you make the rich pay for it; and two, you let the government fix everything. Number one is, and I kid you not, an additional 5.4% surtax on everyone who makes over $1 million a year. Well, that's fine, the rich millionaire. You know, the guy who started out poor, worked his frickin' ass off. Yeah, let's penalize him so we can pay for the guy who refuses to work. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know, the job that Americans just won't do.

There are other taxes as well, you know, for those who make between $350,000 and up. The 5.4% tax is almost double the original number leaked to the press last week and, of course, this hits the small businesses the hardest. If you are not feeling bad for the evil rich people, which I understand because they're all so evil, I had the president of my company. I am a small business owner. I employ 23 people, something like that, 20 people, 23 people. I have a total staff of part‑time and full‑time of about 45 people that we are involved with, but 23 full‑time employees. They all have 100% medical care, 100%. The best money can buy. I have matching. You make a charitable donation, I match it dollar for dollar. Everybody pretty much has a nice, nice existence. I asked the president of my company, do some back‑of‑the‑envelope math. This tax, just this tax by itself, completely independent of all other tax hikes that are coming our way, will stop me from hiring five and ten people. One tax on one small business cost between five and ten jobs. Think about that against the entire scale of the economy. You'll begin to see what this p lan is going to cost in free healthcare. The higher the tax, the less people get hired. The more people need government to give them healthcare or housing! This is a freedom grab!

By the way, the tax hikes only cover about half the plan. Half the plan. Wait a minute. Really? So what covers the rest of it? I kid you not, the expected ‑‑ I'm quoting ‑‑ the expected windfall savings that the government will achieve with government healthcare. Because we all know the government has a history of achieving unbelievable savings. I mean, there's no way the free market system could send an envelope across the country cheaper! There's no way they could do that! Jeez. If that plan, if you happen to be a hate monger and that plan sounds a little unlikely, you'll be interested to hear what the plan is if those savings don't materialize. But we, of course, know the government will save all kinds of money. This is going to be ‑‑ you are never going to have to have a heart transplant because as soon as this happens, our heart will grow three sizes that day. We'll all be super healthy. We'll just be living in sunshine, lollipops, candy contains and Tamiflu will flow in every river.

This is from the Politico report. If those savings don't materialize, quote, those making more than $1 million would see a 5.4% surtax added to the tax bill. Some of the rates could climb if anticipated savings from elsewhere in the bill did not materialize. So as long as the government does a far better job on anything else they've ever done, it should only be about 5.4% tax. If they can't, at this point they are claiming that it could go as high as double, so those five to ten jobs have now become ten to twenty jobs.

I just want to point out that there's no history of our government ever doing this. When they passed the income tax in 1913, the progressive income tax, Woodrow Wilson, they promised us it would never go as high as 10%. It was only 7% for the evil millionaires. 7%. It will never go past 10. Yeah, yeah. They passed it. Never go past 10. Four years later it was 67%. Oh, and by the way, it will never ‑‑ that was an emergency! And there's no more emergencies left. Just like ‑‑ 67%, but it was an emergency. It will never go higher than 60. It's just during the emergency, until the last emergency came or the next one where, I kid you not, the income tax was 92%.

FDR wanted to make it 100% of anybody who made over $25,000, but congress would only go to 94. Now, their other option that they talked about in the past is to pay for some of it with money that they take from you, if they can just get cap and trade. Mark my words. They are going to go for cap and trade. While we are all debating healthcare, they're going to go for cap and trade. Isn't that what happened last time? They introduce healthcare and then they pass cap and trade. Now here comes the healthcare bill. You see, they have to have cap and trade to be able to pass this. Remember, all of this is based on the idea that the evil insurance companies are just so profit‑hungry. The government can beat them in efficiency because they don't have to care about profits or paying CEOs millions of dollars. They won't have all of that greed.

If you take nothing else from this monologue, remember this one thing: Health insurance profits account for .6% of healthcare costs. .6%. That's not me saying that. That's factcheck.org. CEO pay accounts for .005% of costs. This is not about healthcare. It never has been about healthcare. This is about, what does he call it, remaking America. This is government taking control of 1/6th of the economy. In one signature they will take 1/6th of the economy. They will take your arteries, your valves and your pancreas. Yes, you heard me. Your pancreas is at stake. But don't worry because the government can save it, because there's a choice we're making. We are the world. Can I get an amen!


 

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?