Glenn Beck: Is massive Health Care plan reparations?


Glenn Beck's Common Sense


Available in book stores nationwide...

GLENN: First of all, let's just say this. This is a sensitive topic. Things in this monologue are going to be taken out of context and, you know, I'm going to be deemed a racist, and I don't care anymore. Say whatever you want. Let the chips fall. I know the truth. My family knows the truth. My friends know the truth. Whatever. There are strong feelings on both sides about reparations. I know you won't be surprised to hear that I'm opposed to reparations. To me ‑‑ hold on, rightwing zealot alert here ‑‑ there are eternal principles at stake. Or if you prefer, you can call them universal principles because that's in vogue now. First it's universal college, universal healthcare, universal government. If I just say it's a universal principle, maybe Obama can get behind it. But one of my fundamental beliefs in my faith is that I am not accountable for anybody else's sins. I'm only accountable for what I do. One of the things that drives me is I'm not accountable on whether you see the truth, don't see the truth, save yourself, don't save yourself. I am accountable for what I do. And if I see something and I don't warn you, then I am accountable for everybody that I didn't warn. However, if I warn them, that's your deal, man. You don't have to follow. You don't have to pay attention. You can reject it because you know what? Maybe I'm wrong. But if I believe it, I need to say it.

I'm not accountable for anybody else's sins. Not my ancestors, not my family's, not even Adam's. I am only accountable for what I do and that is something that I believe to my very core. But why is Barack Obama supposedly opposed to reparations? He doesn't share my faith. In fact, he attended a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years. Black Liberation Theology teaches it is the white man that has kept you down. It is the white man that you must take money from, you must take power from to make up for the past. So that doesn't fit. Did he suddenly come down with that case of 24‑hour logic and reason that's not coming around Washington? No. He and everybody else has been immunized. So there's no chance of that. Did he realize suddenly that if he weren't to pay out reparations ‑‑ or if he were to pay out reparations to millions of African‑Americans that that would throw the door wide open to the Native Americans as well? And they wouldn't just want money. They want their land back. And the rest of us would all be on boats headed back to the mother land. The problem is I don't know what the mother land is anymore. Every country on Earth has been populated by people who are not indigenous to it. Every country on Earth has been bought, appropriated, conquered, stolen. I mean, I guess we could find the original bush or the original cave, you know, in Africa or Babylon where we first crawled out of and called it home, try to jam six billion people into it. The environmentalists would love it because it would be great for the rest of the planet, but they would be talking about how the cave life there for six billion would be unsustainable and bad for the bats.

So I'm guessing that's not why Obama claims he opposes reparations. Neither is he concerned about repairing other wrongs done to other groups of people. For instance, I think the Jews could make a pretty strong case against Germany for the whole World War II thing, you know. Not to mention Egypt, 400 years of bondage. But wasn't Barack Obama over there just now in Egypt blaming Egypt's problems on the Jews? What about reparations for slavery of the Egyptians enslaving the Jews? And on top of that, they've had to deal with Barbra Streisand. Can't we leave these people alone? Then there's the ethnic Albanians, the Kurds, the Tootsies, the Hutus, the nonmajority population of Darfur, the Cambodians. Nearly every other ethnicity that has ever arrived on the shores of this country has been at first beaten down. How about the Irish? Does Ted Kennedy's family need reparations? How about the Asians that built the railroads in slave‑like conditions? Do they need reparations? How about faith? How about the Jews? How about the Mormons? Does Mitt Romney, does he need reparations? He seemed to do pretty well for himself even though his faith, the people in his faith in the 1850s, same time as slavery, killed, tarred, feathered, dragged from their homes, beaten. Their homes their places of worship burned to the ground, chased by mobs in every place they settled starting in New York all the way across the country. The U.S. Army was sent in to attack them after they arrived in a city they called home. They decided not to when they got there. In Missouri the governor of the state issued an extermination order against them in 1838. An extermination order. It is the only one in the history of the country where it was legal to kill a group of people, and it wasn't rescinded until 1976. Did they receive reparations? No. All they got was Donnie and Marie and Harry Reid. These people can't even drink their way into drunken stupors to forget their troubles. They moved on. But none of that enters into Barack Obama's thinking. He doesn't even consider the 360,000 union troops killed in the Civil War as debt paid. And don't even think about asking him about affirmative action. That wasn't any kind of reparation. Neither was Black Entertainment Television, Black History month, United Negro College Fund, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, RainbowPUSH Coalition, 100 Black Men of America. None of these things could exist for whites. And Obama couldn't care less. It's not about doing the right thing and uniting.

Could it be that Obama realizes the incomprehensible nightmare that reparations would present to the country, things like who would pay, how much? Do all whites pay? Even if they can prove their ancestors weren't slave owners, weren't even here at the time? Would Hispanics and Asians pay? If so, how? How much? Maybe just the rich white would pay, say another 9 or 10% surcharge. What the heck. They can afford it. They don't even work for their money. They've been handed everything. These people don't work. They wake up in the morning. They tell their servants, "James, go out and pluck me some cash from my magic fairy money tree in the yard. I say $2 or $3 million should be enough for today. And then get out of my sight, you nauseate me. You have the sniffles? Oh, we should exterminate you."

Would Great Britain pay since this was their colony at the time slavery was instituted? How about the Dutch for their involvement? For that matter, what about the ancestors of black African slave traders who sold their own people in Africa in the first place? Then there's this question: Who would receive the money? All blacks? Or just those directly descended from slaves? Would Barack Obama, whose white mother was from Kansas and black father from Kenya? I know the story. I've only heard it more than I have heard about John McCain's war stories! Wait a minute. His father was not a descendant of slaves and his mother was white. So maybe Michelle Obama would be the only one that should be able to get the cash. Since Obama is half white and half black, would he pay and receive?

See, these are the tricky questions. But then again, they have nothing to do with Obama's objection to reparations. Obama is against direct reparations for one reason. He doesn't ever want the victim card to be lost. In 2004 he wrote, "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say we've paid our debt and then avoid the much harder work." What is the harder work? What is the harder work? You don't want the debt paid because you don't ever want the leverage gone. The debt can never be paid. Instead he has a better idea. Universal healthcare and that's just the beginning. That's only one piece. Universal healthcare.

Let me ask you this: The green movement, how come his green jobs czar is a black nationalist? A communist black nationalist. A black nationalist again is the same kind of thinking of Jeremiah Wright. What does that have to do with green jobs? How was he a black nationalist militant, become communist, anarchist and then find the eco movement and then say this is the job for me? Because the green jobs czar isn't concerned about the planet. He's concerned about reparations. He's concerned about leveling the playing field. Universal healthcare is the next step. It's a much less obvious route to reparations. And if you think that I am making this up or this is just some conspiracy theory, this is what I was reminded of yesterday when I was walking down the hall and I looked at Stu and I said, didn't we do a monologue on that? Didn't he say something during the election that we did a monologue on and I said, look at this? This is what we found. Quote from Barack Obama: If we have a program, for example... he had rejected universal healthcare because ‑‑ I'm sorry. He had rejected reparations because reparations didn't go far enough. But if we have a program, for example, of universal healthcare that will disproportionately affect people of color because they are disproportionately uninsured, if we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get, should be able to go to college regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color because it is oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college.

Barack Obama is setting up universal healthcare, universal college, green jobs as stealth reparations. That way the victim status is maintained. And he also brings back back‑door reparations.

This would be crazy if he hadn't stated it himself. And if you couldn't pick up an organizational chart of the Democratic health plan and find next to the national coordinator for health the Office of Civil Rights and Office of Minority Health. I don't know if minorities are sicker than the rest or need different ‑‑ do they have different medicines for minorities? This wouldn't make sense. If in the health bill it didn't state that colleges that had a reputation and had an aggressive minority acceptance level in medical school that they would have better access to money, more access to money and a better partner. But don't worry. African‑Americans will get the reparations and if you are Jewish or you are Mormon, we'll play Barbra Streisand or Donny and Marie for you this morning and that should put a little salve on the old wounds.

And now some news that will surprise none of us, certainly not anybody who's heard about or seen the radical leftism that's overtaken universities. The Dartmouth, Dartmouth College's daily student newspaper, conducted a study of about 4,400 undergraduates at Dartmouth to measure the tolerance relative to opposing viewpoints. They first identified themselves as either Democrat, Independent, or Republican, then they were asked how they would be affected by learning that another student had political beliefs opposite their own.

RELATED: You need to read THIS before signing that next tuition check

Care to take a guess which group was more tolerant? I'll give you a hint, it's not the side demanding safe spaces, trigger warnings, and infinite-gender bathrooms. Overwhelmingly, Republicans were more tolerant.

When asked if they would be less likely to date someone after learning they held opposing viewpoints, a daunting 82 percent of Democrats answered that, yes, they would be less likely to date a Republican—or anyone the slightest bit right of ANTIFA, for that matter. By comparison, only 42 percent of Republicans said that a person with opposing viewpoints would be less date-worthy.

The students were also asked: "what type of environment is more important for Dartmouth to create?"

"A) a positive learning environment for all students by prohibiting certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people" or

"B) an open learning environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints, even if it means allowing speech that is offensive or biased against certain groups of people." The Result: 71 percent of respondents said they prefer the open environment option. Students who are Republicans (94 percent), white (71 percent) and male (84 percent) were most likely to opt for the "open" option.

No surprises, really, but there is a slight comfort in having the numbers to empirically prove it. Facts and data, just two of the boogeymen haunting progressives.

The student population at Dartmouth is overwhelmingly left-leaning, roughly 67 percent, while Republicans make up about 19 percent. By comparison, 69 percent of Republicans students "felt free speech was threatened on campus," while only 21 percent of Democrats felt the same.

No surprises, really, but there is a slight comfort in having the numbers to empirically prove it. Facts and data, just two of the boogeymen haunting progressives.

UPDATE: Here's how the conversation went on radio. Watch the video below.

Dartmouth study finds students who ID as Democrat are least tolerant

A new study of Dartmouth undergrads found some intriguing gaps between Democrats, Republicans and Independents when it comes to having people with opposing political views in their lives.

Are we having the adult conversation that we need to have when it comes to President Trump's pardons, his commuting sentences, and about prison reform altogether? I'm not so sure.

Yesterday, President Trump commuted the prison sentence of Alice Johnson, a 63-year-old woman from Tennessee. Since 1996, Johnson has been serving a life sentence in federal prison for drug possession and money laundering. She is now a free woman.

RELATED: The 'Kim Summit' finally happened, just not the one you were thinking of

The president's move is getting bi-partisan cheers, though the Left doesn't want to get too carried away, after all, it's still President Trump. He's not really capable of taking any action the Left would actually agree with, right?

Alice Johnson is the reason that Kim Kardashian visited the White House last week to speak with the President. Kardashian apparently saw a video about Alice Johnson's case last year on Twitter, and ended up putting together a legal team to work on Johnson's case. Kardashian eventually reached out to Jared Kushner, who helped arrange the White House meeting.

Okay, here's the deal. This seems like it might be a positive move by President Trump. And, yes, we need prison reform. I'm all for that. But we can't mistake this for actual prison reform. Alice Johnson may be very deserving of having her sentence commuted. Perhaps life in prison was too much of a penalty for her crimes. But the administration needs to be careful that this doesn't turn into a game of who can catch the eye of the king?

The administration needs to be careful that this doesn't turn into a game of "who can catch the eye of the king?"

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Currently there are 2.2 million people behind bars, a rate of 860 inmates for every 100,000 American adults. It also costs $183 billion a year to run our prisons. While prison reform might improve conditions, and shorten some sentences for current prisoners, we also need to take a serious look at sentencing reform.

The President has an opening here to collaborate with Congress on real prison and sentencing reform. Then a move like yesterday's could be used to promote and roll out the reforms.

Again, this seems like a step in the right direction, but it's also a very dicey step, particularly in the way it's portrayed in the media as: reality star shows up and grandmother inmate gets immediate justice! This issue needs a lot less TMZ, and a lot more adult conversation.

UPDATE: Here's how the conversation went on radio. Watch the video below.

Alice Johnson's release thanks to Trump is a good step – but here's the catch

After a visit from Kim Kardashian West to advocate on her behalf, President Donald Trump has commuted the life sentence of 63-year-old Alice Johnson. The grandmother had been sentenced to life in prison after a non-violent drug crime.

THIS is what a $15 minimum wage really looks like

Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Is there a "blue wave" coming? It sure did look like it back in January. Democrats boasted a twelve point lead just five months ago. That lead is now just FOUR POINTS. You can't even really call that a lead when you factor in margin of error.

RELATED: Minimum Wage to Increase in 18 States – Here's How a Rise Could Hurt Workers

BUT, in case the "wave" is real, it's absolutely crucial that we educate ourselves with the agenda they'll start to push. To conquer the "wave" let's first learn how to surf their issues. We've seen a lot of talk lately about free healthcare and free college tuition, but this morning I want to talk real quickly about the minimum wage. A fifteen dollar minimum wage has been a staple issue for people like Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker… I could go on, but the progressive crazy list is too long to fit into a three hour radio show.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25. Progressive lawmakers want to effectively DOUBLE that. What effect might that have? I mean, you've probably heard a conservative media pundit or even a right leaning politician claim that jobs would suffer if this were to become reality, but is there any real data to back that up? If McDonalds is suddenly forced to pay fifteen dollars an hour to ALL their workers, would they do as we expect and begin laying off employees to compensate for the higher wages? That's what those of us on the right claim, but is that reality?

Kiosks will outnumber employees in every business from fast food, grocery stores, retail, gas stations… everywhere.

Noah Williams, an economics professor at the University of Wisconsin, crunched the numbers in two states to find out what effect raising the minimum wage had on jobs. He used fast food employment job numbers - which is the standard for measuring low wage industry job changes - in both Minnesota and his home state of Wisconsin. From 2010 to 2014, fast food employment in both states grew at the same rate, but from 2014 until today Wisconsin began outpacing Minnesota by over four percentage points. Employment is dropping in Minnesota and rising in Wisconsin. So what's going on?

The problems began in 2014. That's the same year that Minnesota began to implement a minimum wage increase. Wages went up to 9.65 per hour for large employers and 7.87 per hour for small employers. If you consider 15 dollars per hour as the ultimate progressive goal, what Minnesota did is actually considered pretty minor. But look what just those small tweaks did to employment. Now think about what would happen at FIFTEEN. Kiosks will outnumber employees in every business from fast food, grocery stores, retail, gas stations… everywhere.

This is just one of the many crazy progressive issues we need to be knowledgeable about in the next few weeks, months and years. Progressive and socialist principles rely on ignorance to succeed. It's up to us to deny them that.

Over the weekend, six of the seven nations that make up the G7 — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom — banded together to oppose President Trump's recent tariffs. The upcoming G7 summit, which will be held Friday and Saturday in Charlevoix, Quebec, comes amid mounting tensions after the Trump administration slapped allies, Canada, Mexico and the European Union, with tariffs on steel and aluminum last week.

RELATED: Here's What You Should Know About Trump's 'Trade Wars'

Now, with the threat of an international trade war looming large, many Americans are left wondering, "How will all this affect me?"

Glenn Beck took to the chalkboard on the show today to give us a break down of the many ways tariffs and trade disputes ripple throughout the economy and impact prices on everything ranging from apples to motorcycles.

Watch the clip below to get Glenn's take.

Trade Wars

G7 nations unite against US in response to Trump's tariffs.