The New Republic: America's Future Recap

All week on radio and TV Glenn asked the tough questions -- because our republic is being transformed before our very eyes. The time for silent dissent has long passed, and now the hard questions need to be asked. Maybe there are perfectly logical explanations for Obama's 'Civilian National Security Force' he wants funded as well as the military. But what is it? Who are the radical Czars in the White House, and why are they there? Does the President actually listen to Communist ideas? Here is the ENTIRE RECAP of this weeks shows -- the monologues, the questions, the amazing interview with Rush Limbaugh and more. Please, read it and pass it around to all of your friends. These questions need to be asked and answered. Get started!

Related Videos

Question with Boldness

You need to start asking questions:

Day 1

-  Can we survive this debt? If yes, how?

-  Why the rush on health care reform, cap-and-trade?

-  Who is writing these bills?

-  Will Washington read and understand the bills?

-  Why are you called "grassroots" if you are for, but "Astroturf" if you are against?

-  Our unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

-  We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and health care programs before we stop the flow of red ink?

-  The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN: How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

-  If it was so important for Congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it, why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent six months later?

-  Former President Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them; how exactly does that work?

-  Why won’t member of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

-  Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

-  Was the "cash for clunkers" program meant to save the Earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

-  How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist, become a special adviser to the president?

-  Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special adviser?

-  The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill; why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

-  If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1,000-page plus bills actually impose on the American people?

-  If the "public option" health care plan is so good, why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

-  If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind, why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

-  Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

-  Why would you want to overwhelm the system?

-  Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through Congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about not letting a crisis go to waste?

-  What are the president's "czars" paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?

Day 2

-  Who is "surrounding" the president in the White House?

-  Do any of the president's advisers have criminal records?

-  Are the president's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

-  Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

-  What role do they have in crafting bills?

-  What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders; where are they now?

-  What qualifications must one have to be a presidential adviser?

-  What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

-  Do the "czars" have power?

-  Should a communist have the ear of the president of the United States?

-  What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

-  Does the president know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

-  How many people in the administration are connected to the Movement for a Democratic Society?

-  What role does George Soros play... constitutionally?

Day 3

-  Why does the FCC have a diversity "czar"?

-  Who is Mark Lloyd and how does he plan to "balance" the airwaves?

-  Will he bring back the Fairness Doctrine or worse?

-  Cass Sunstein once said he wants to balance the Internet; is that next?

-  Will broadcasters who leave the airwaves be allowed to go to satellite or Internet without government regulation?

-  Is there any place (that has a mass audience) where the government wont regulate free speech?

-  Why does it seem every member of the Obama advisory team hates capitalism, unless those companies (like G.E.) are in bed with the administration?

If Lloyd has his way, stations who don't comply to the governments definition of the "public interest" will have to pay a massive fine — that helps support public broadcasting:

-  What will be the definition of "public interest"?

-  Who defines "public interest"?

-  Why should it be balanced? Because it's public airwaves? (Well, there are public roads that go by my house and I don't count how many Republicans and Democrats are driving on them)

Day 4

-  Why do we need a civilian force?

-  Who is posing a threat to us?

-  Who will this "force" be made up of?

-  Who is the real enemy?

-  Does the president know of a coming event? If not, who builds an army against an unrecognized enemy?

-  Why won't the media get off their butts and look into these radicals in the White House? And into this civilian army?

------

All the President's Men



Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

This is probably the hardest week of broadcast in my life.

I have been trying to figure out what's going on with my country since President Bush argued — with a straight face — that he could protect America while keeping our borders wide open. You and I both knew at the time that was a lie. You were angry, but you also had a life (family, job) and probably didn't start watching things closely. Because of my job, I did.

Over the last few years, I have come to believe things that I don't want to believe. They are uncomfortable and have made me — much to the aid of Jon Stewart's wallet — weep for my country.

I told you on Monday that there are three principles this show will drum through:

Question with boldness

Hold to the truth

Speak without fear

Let me focus on the second one for a bit.

If you truly ask what Jefferson called honest questions, with a sincere heart, the answers may take you to very uncomfortable places.

Nobody wants to think our president is a bad guy; President Obama actually seems like a likeable guy. And he may be the greatest guy ever. But is he in step with you and what you believe this country is?

When you hear the evidence, you have a decision to make: Will I bury my head in the sand, refusing to believe because it doesn't fit my agenda or my comfort level? Or will I hold to the truth whatever it is, so I may be a part of the solution and not an enabler to the problem.

On Monday night's show, I asked the tough questions on the president's special advisers — his "czars." They have the ear of the president of the United States; we should know more about them. What are they telling him? Does he listen to them? Who are they?

The first one we talked about was Van Jones — a self proclaimed radical, revolutionary communist; a man who co-founded an organization, whose own concluding documents said:

"Mobilizing young people of color into militant direct action — and combine it with more deeply-rooted organizing in our communities."

When we asked the White House if they knew about Jones' radical roots and if it gave them pause to make him a special adviser, the White House told us he was "focused on only one issue."

That is not an answer to the question. And beyond that, he's a communist… focused on job creation? What jobs does a communist create?

Let me continue to ask: Who has the president surrounded himself with?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN PRESIDENTIAL-CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden, or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO. Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

We already know of at least five radical leftists currently advising our president — and these are just the ones who are open about their radical beliefs and far-left ideas:

Van Jones, green jobs "czar" — admits he's a communist

John Holdren, science "czar" — proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population

Cass Sunstein, regulatory "czar" — proposed bans on hunting and eating meat and proposed that your dog to be allowed to have an attorney in court. And a fairness doctrine for the Internet, which he has since stepped away from

Carol Browner, global warming "czar" — was part of Socialist International, a group for "global governance"

Ezekiel Emmanuel, health care adviser — proponent of the Complete Lives System, which puts values on lives based mostly by age

How many Marxists, communists and anti-capitalists do you have around you on a daily basis?

But President Obama doesn't just have socialists and communists advising him. On Monday night I told you about the people who helped write the stimulus: the Apollo Alliance.

Jeff Jones, one of the leaders of the Apollo Alliance, may or may not have ever advised the president — we don't know because we can't get the entrance records at the White House.

But we do know this: Jones' organization, which he chairs in New York, had a lot to do with the stimulus bill — according to Harry Reid:

"This legislation is the first step in building a clean energy economy that creates jobs.... The Apollo Alliance has been an important factor in helping us develop and execute a strategy that makes great progress on these goals and in motivating the public to support them."

Does the president know he's had two pretty big encounters with the founders of the Weather Underground? A group that bombed government buildings?

We asked the White House — we are still waiting on a response.

By the way, we've also told you that the White House has tried or wanted to go around the FBI to have vetting done by the White House. I would think that based on what's happening here at the White House, it's pretty important to have an outside eye vet some of the people who may be advising our president.

How many times do we have to find a Marxist, communist, socialist, a revolutionary or, what seems amazing to me, a simple anti-capitalist near, around or advising the president of the United States before we ask the question, when he promises this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Is he promising to transform us into something unrecognizable to most Americans, but not unrecognizable to Hugo Chavez: "Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right!"

Is it un-American, hateful or outrageous to sincerely and honestly ask this question when the communist president of Venezuela says that?

------

Speak Without Fear



Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

We're halfway through the week and here are just a few of the things we've learned so far:

Congress, beyond not reading these bills, is not even writing these bills. They are being written by a vast network that is not conspiratorial — it is completely out and wide open — yet the media refuses to report on them.

Organizations that are filled with socialists, communists, revolutionaries. Organizations that pull their members from legitimate businesses, politicians and from groups that most Americans have never heard of, like Movement for a Democratic Society — a group started by members of the Communist Party USA, other radicals and Socialists of America.

I have demonstrated these radicals are not only instrumental in shaping legislation that's being jammed through, but are also -- by invitation -- personally advising the president of the United States.

And again the media remains silent.

These are facts — not opinions. I want to point out the silence; no one has challenged these facts — they just attack me personally.

Day 3 and the White House remains silent. Yet they have e-mailed my show during the broadcast, only to refute that these people are not "czars," they are "special advisers." One would think if all of this weren't true, they would worry about the labels "communist" or "revolutionary," not "special adviser."

I've also showed you the framework that — to quote Barack Obama — is "fundamentally transforming America." But this is much bigger than Barack Obama. Powerful special interest groups began to lay this framework over the last few years.

Remember the Green Jobs Act during the Bush administration? Many on Capitol Hill voted for it because they claimed it was unfunded with meaningless language, tucked into a 900-page bill. Heck, it only asked for $125 million (requested by the special interest group, the Apollo Alliance).

Now, that meaningless, unfunded, green act doesn't have $125 million, but rather $500 million that was — to use green jobs "czar" Van Jones' word — "smuggled" into the stimulus bill.

That money is now being funneled by Van Jones (a self-proclaimed revolutionary communist) to organizations and programs of his design and choosing. Oh, and he sits on the board of the Apollo Alliance.

What new "harmless compromises" do we have to look forward to in the health care bills with these radical wolves that are about to devour our republic?

I've told you the three mottos that I have personally adopted: Question with boldness; hold to the truth, and speak without fear.

This information is not being reported on just because the media can't be piece together quickly enough what is happening or they somehow agree with this revolutionary agenda — but fear also plays a big role. People have too much to lose.

As a recovering alcoholic, I've already lost everything once; I'm better and stronger for it. I didn't need a bailout; I needed to rediscover my principles. I've told my audience for years after I sobered up that I was a dirt-bag — I try my hardest not to be now, but I still make mistakes. They can take my job or my wealth — that's OK because I've been rich and I've been poor. But I was only truly miserable when I was lying to myself or others. And because some of those principles that I've rediscovered and applied to my life are the founding principles of this country.

I know that even if the current powers that be succeed in making me poor again, I will only be stronger for it. And American ingenuity will find another way to get this message out on a platform 1,000 times more powerful.

Because of my faith, I know how this story ends: America prepare to witness mighty, powerful miracles in your lifetime.

I am going to offer up evidence that part of the strategy of the fundamental transformation of America is to silence dissent.

Let me show you one of the most diabolical hidden parts of the plan, that quite honestly when I finished my research on it last week, I wrote to a friend that for the first time, I am truly frightened.

It involves the new diversity "czar" at the FCC.

I have told you for a long time: Pay no attention to the Fairness Doctrine that would shut down voices like mine on the radio or voices like mine and Bill O'Reilly on TV. It's too obvious. They will do it through what's called "localism" and "diversity." The final piece of the argument will be against these giant corporate broadcast groups that have too much power (one of which will never be G.E.)

This has been my warning and my theory. A week and a half ago, I began to look into our FCC diversity "czar" Mark Lloyd. In his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America," Lloyd wrote:

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.... This freedom is all too often an exaggeration.... At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies."

Freedom of speech... is a distraction?

Localism boards are being created. Our diversity "czar" has just proposed that radio companies pay 100 percent of their operating budget, yearly. A 100 percent tax which would then be transferred to the state-run radio of NPR. If you can't pay that, you'd lose your license and it would be sold to minority group.

(In a completely unrelated fact, the FCC just approved the sale of another radio station — this one on Long Island — to ACORN.)

Speak without fear.

On global warming, people didn't speak because they didn't want to be seen as a Holocaust denier or a flat-Earther. So they passed "harmless legislation." Now we have half a billion dollars in the hands of a communist revolutionary, who describes his job as:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS CZAR: What I do, to kinda make it simple, I'm basically a community organizer inside the federal government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And now because no one in their right mind is against diversity, people will be afraid of being called a racist or a bigot or a hatemonger.

Speak without fear or more "harmless legislation" will be passed and you will not be able to speak and you will experience the kind of fear that no one in this country has experienced before. All it will take is an "emergency."

God help us all.

------

Barack Obama's Civilian Army

1:01 ET



Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

Thursday's show, I believe, it's the most controversial of all the shows this week — and maybe ever.

I will give you some facts, some history but also some of the future.

The reason Thursday's show is the last before Friday's solution, I wanted you to see who was advising the president and what they are doing, before I could ask you to look at this phrase from Barack Obama and think he meant it literally:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I don't know how anyone will respond to the facts I am going to present, because they really haven't responded to any of our questions or challenged any of the facts in our last few shows other than "Hey, don't call him a 'czar!'"

But I can't make this piece of the puzzle fit, unless this piece is about building some kind of thug-ocracy.

All week we've been asking tough questions — here's one more, Mr. President: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is "just as strong, just as powerful" as the military?

Here's why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called The Minuteman and the attitude from this administration — as well as the Bush administration — is that they were "vigilantes." So it's not for the border.

It can't be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren't even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

So, who's left? Is it possible we are seeing the beginnings of another enemy?

Mr. President, is your civilian national security force to protect us from things the Missouri State Police, your own Homeland Security and the liberal Southern Law Poverty Center have come out and said were a threat: militia groups; tea party goers; folks with "Don't Tread on Me" flags; me; Sarah Palin?

Think about this: Is it unreasonable to think this government would ask you to spy on your neighbors, in light of these recent stories:

— Flag.gov e-mail asking for tips on "fishy" behavior

— Cookies on your computer that track whenever you've been on a government Web site — this used to be illegal but that was changed

— The government is using outside companies to track and contact you. Are they gathering information on you? I know that on "cash for clunkers" they didn't trust the dealers.

To me, all of this sounds like a sci-fi movie, but again I have to ask the reasonable question, in these unreasonable times: Who will the civilian national security force protect us from?

Maybe a better question to ask is, Mr. President: Do you know of a coming event?

Or maybe we should ask Joe Biden, who said:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

THEN-VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE JOE BIDEN: Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.... Remember I said it standing here, if you don't remember anything else I said: Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

Is this civilian national security force just preparing for what Joe Biden predicted?

Who builds an army against an unidentified, unrecognized threat? Because we can't answer that question — or any of the others just proposed — then it's up to us to look for clues.

Maybe we have to start with the company whose CEO is a close financial adviser to the president of the United States, who helped write the health care bill and cap-and-trade bill and who has billions of dollars at stake: Jeffrey Immelt.

Immelt has been appointed by president to the board of directors to the New York Federal Reserve. Does he have any information? Let's look for what they may be saying the threat will be that we will need a civilian national security force against.

It would seem to me the network that sells "Yes We Did" dolls, mugs and t-shirts and is obviously extraordinarily close to the president in seven different ways — is it possible to watch their network and their news, to see if they have any inside information as to what this threat may be? Immelt's network seems to be the leading network in predicting a lot of trouble, but they're not alone:

(BEGIN VIDEO MONTAGE)

ED SCHULTZ RADIO SHOW: Folks, these people are psycho. That's what they are. Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.

FRANK RICH, NEW YORK TIMES COLUMNIST: I'm just old enough, I was a kid, I remember I woke up in 1963 to the horrible events in Dallas. Even as a kid, I happened to be growing up in Washington, D.C., it was palatable to me all this hate talk about Kennedy and this sort of crazy fear.... But there were a lot of threats. There was a lot of stuff going on that in tone resembles this.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER, D-CALIF.: All of this is a diversion by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama. And by the way I saw some of the clips of people storming these townhall meetings. The last time I saw well-dressed people doing this, was when Al Gore asked me to go down to Florida when they were recounting the ballots, and I was confronted with the same type of people. They were there screaming and yelling, "Go back to California! Get out of here!" and all the rest of it.

CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC: "A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip.... The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms.... There are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists.

(END VIDEO MONTAGE)

Is it reasonable to ask the question — based on these clips — do they think that a good portion of the American people are the enemy? They are such a danger we need a civilian national security force as well-funded and well-trained as the military?

That's who they think the enemy is and, once again, the media has it completely wrong.

So who is the real enemy?

"Common Sense" has been No. 1 for the last 10 weeks. One of the last chapters is "The Enemy Within" — I wrote it months ago. It doesn't take a genius to figure this out — let me give you this quote:

"It's not just the political class who has mastered the art of deception. There are other potentially deadly masters who will seek to exploit your frustration and sense of desperation. Many will warn you of government tyranny; they'll talk of secret societies, vast conspiracies, shadow governments, and the need for violent action. I urge you to stay away from these individuals and those ideas."

We've showed you the radicals in this administration. Now I'll show you the radicals outside the administration who are being used and will be used by the media and by this administration:

There was the Obama Joker poster creator; the right tried to take advantage of this and added the word "socialist" under it. But the creator of the poster is a Kucinich supporter who doesn't like Obama because he's not left enough.

Then there was that clip on MSNBC: The racist white person (according to MSNBC) who brought a rifle to the Obama town hall — wasn't even white! He was black.

In Denver, Maurice Joseph Schwenkler and an at-large accomplish smashed in windows at the Democratic Party HQ in Denver. Both parties accused Schwenkler of supporting the other, but he's a "trans-gendered anarchist" who belongs to the radical anarchist protest group Denver Bash Back.

While the radicals in the White House may not be connected to the radicals just mentioned, they are connected by the fact that they are radicals.

Remember, Obama adviser "czar" Jones created STORM who believes: "Revolutionaries need to be militant in street actions. As leaders in the fight for liberation, we should be role models of fearlessness before the state and the oppressor."

These are the sort of tactics some of Obama's "czars" know best.

So when we've got a president creating a "civilian force" as strong as the military and an admitted far-left radical in the White House doing this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS 'CZAR': Actually, my job is not so dissimilar than my job was before.... What I do, can I make it simple, I'm basically a community organizer with the federal family.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

How else am I supposed to read this? I'm happy to hear any other explanation than "don't call him a czar."

------

A Call to Action



Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

What a week.

The president said he was going to fundamentally transform America. Since January 20, he's been racing full steam ahead toward doing just that. This week, can you feel a pivot point? Doesn't it feel like, as a nation, we are waking up?

We've showed you some amazing, frightening facts and the White House hasn't challenged any of it.

Unfortunately, I guess that means they agree with the information we've presented on people like green jobs "czar" Van Jones. He's an avowed communist and radical activist who co-founded the communist group STORM — a group that describes themselves and their activities as:

"We upheld the Marxist critique of capitalist exploitation. We agree with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party. And we found inspiration and guidance in the insurgent revolutionary strategies developed by third world revolutionaries like Mao Tse-Tung and Amilcar Cabral."

The White House hasn't bothered to even spin the information we presented on FCC diversity "czar" Mark Lloyd. This guy actually lamented the fact that non-state-run radio stations prevented the "incredible" revolution in Venezuela:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LLOYD, FCC DIVERSITY CHIEF: In Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution — a democratic revolution — to begin to put in place saying that we're going to have impact on the people of Venezuela the property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled — work frankly with folks here in the U.S. government worked to oust him and came back and had another revolution. And Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

That pesky private sector! It's just littered with that non-propaganda talk.

Lloyd has talked about balancing out the airwaves — and that's not just conservatives, that's everyone who doesn't agree with the state. Again, the White House is not disputing any of this. That should frighten you. Especially in light of the story on Drudge today about the bill that would give Obama emergency control of the Internet. Wait, that sounds familiar... oh yeah, that's "czar" Cass Sunstein's idea.

How about the New York chair of the Apollo Alliance — the people who designed the stimulus package? His name is Jeff Jones. Before deciding who to give your tax money to, Jones co-founded the Weather Underground with Bill Ayers. The Weather Underground is a domestic terrorist group that came out of the communist revolutionary group Students for Democratic Society of the 1960s.

Does that bother the White House? Apparently not because they haven't denied any of this, nor have they fired anyone or even denounced these radical backgrounds. And the radical Jones is currently helping New York spend more of the stimulus.

Yet, the White House does seem pretty concerned about you.

The Department of Homeland Security warned of the rise in "right-wing militia" groups — their report said if you are concerned about "legislation on tighter firearms" you could be in a "white supremacist militia movement."

They are name-calling you.

Saul Alinsky's big strategy was to take the enemy out of their comfort zone. Van Jones and all of these "czars" know this; they are radicals. To quote Van Jones: "We need to be about the whup-a**. Somebody's f****ng up somewhere. They have names and job descriptions. You have to be creative about how you engage the enemy, because if you do it on his terms, the outcome is already known."

You are fighting on their level. We're taking it. We're being called greedy hate-mongers who only care about profits whatever else and we cower.

Tonight, I am going to lay out a plan.

Step 1: Fear not and take them on.

We've been fighting on their terms — afraid to say anything. It's time to forget that! Let's make them uncomfortable with the facts:

— You think I want to starve inner-city children? Really? Let's look at the policies where radical progressives have had control. The cities with the top 10 poverty rates in America have been run by Republicans only 8 percent of the time since 1965 and eight out of the 11 have been run by Democrats 100 percent of the time.

— Am I the one that hurts education? Washington, D.C., has long been controlled by progressives. They spend $15,000 per student (the national average is $10,000), yet they are still ranked among the worst in the country: Only 60 percent of the kids graduate and only 9 percent will complete college within five years of graduating.

— Am I reckless for supporting gun rights? In England they banned guns in 1998. For the next seven years, the number of deaths and injuries from gun crimes increased 340 percent — because, guess what, criminals aren't going to wait on a background check on their way to shoot someone.

— I'm "unpatriotic" and "cold-hearted" and even part of "the mob" for opposing government-run health care? When was the last time, in America, you saw patients in hospitals so thirsty they had to drink water from the nearby plants or 4,000 new moms being forced to give birth in hallways because of a shortage of rooms or see someone have their supposedly removed spleen suddenly rupture? Because all of those things did happen in the U.K., where they do have government health care.

The argument isn't about the facts anymore. When the shouters — on either side — are wrong, instead of admitting it, they just call you a hatemonger. They try and shame you into silence.

We need to screw our courage to the sticking place and, without fear, force them to face the tough questions — no matter what name you're called or what threat you face because the truth shall set you free.

Sure, groups will come after you. If you disagree with man-made global warming the radicals will attack you and call you a flat-Earth believing, Holocaust-denying, selfish jerk who would rather drive an SUV than save the planet from certain destruction.

But the IPCC report that they so love to quote says the best way to fight global warming isn't by getting a Prius, it's by not eating meat. How many of your Earth-loving green friends are vegans? From here on out, when they start lecturing you about the planet, ask: Do you eat meat? Do you have leather shoes? If they say anything else other than "absolutely not," tell them to sit down and shut up. And when they stop doing more supposed damage with their steak, then you can talk to me about my SUV.

And maybe we'll also talk about the green jobs "czar," who sees green jobs like this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VAN JONES, GREEN JOBS 'CZAR': We want a green economy that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty. We're not leaving anybody behind. We don't want an eco-elite economy.

We're talking about people that don't have a home. How do they get to be part of this green economy?

What good is a green economy if at the end of the day, it's just eco-apartheid anyway?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Which is it: We need green jobs because the Earth has a temperature (like Al Gore said) or we need green jobs for social justice?

By the way, that's Marxist code language. Social justice equals "take from him and give to him."

America, don't you see it? This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is about Republicans and Democrats and Independents against radicals, revolutionaries and anti-capitalist nut jobs.

Almost all Americans love the Constitution and we may disagree with this policy or that, but the fundamental transformation — the change that 80 percent of America was looking for — was a driving out of the money changers — those in bed with special interests, global corporations, Wall Street fat cats and political party hacks.

In the coming weeks on this program I'm going to ask you to continue to watch with a piece of paper because I'm going to continue to expose these connections and plans that are out of step with almost everybody in this country — unless you live in the basement of Nancy Pelosi's house in the most radically progressive neighborhood in the country while eating arugula and roast beef sandwiches!

But we're also going to arm you with facts. It's time to be unafraid and stop fearing name-calling, because sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

And just so you know, for those of you who are working for this revolution at the White House and SEIU and ACORN and Americorps, you should go back and listen to The Beatles' "White Album." Listen to a song, co-written by your progressive friend, John Lennon — who got it.

Even during the peak of 1960s radicalism, the Beatles understood:

"You say you want a revolution.


Well, you know,


We all want to change the world.


You say you'll change the Constitution,


Well, you know,


We all want to change your head.


You tell me it's the institution,


Well, you know,


You better free your mind instead.


But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,


You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.


Don't you know know it's gonna be all right."

• Is Beck right? Click here to sound off

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on FOX News Channel

Seventeen point four million people tuned in for the final season of Games of Thrones' premiere last week. It was a series record for HBO, shattering all previous numbers. It really is a pop culture phenomenon. People that don't even like this kind of genre are tuning in to see if the Night King will win or if Daenerys will do as promised and "break the wheel". Meanwhile, another Game of Thrones is playing out in global politics, and what happened this weekend in Ukraine is yet another sign… this wheel is already broken.

Imagine for a second that the United States economy has just collapsed, a coup occurs, and then China invades California, annexing the entire Western seaboard. Now imagine that, in the absence of a George Washington resurrection, we elect Conan O'Brien to be the president to lead us out of all this mess. During the chaos, O'Brien breaks out Triumph the Insult Comic Dog and goes viral insulting the post-coup government. Eventually, he decides… screw it! Might as well run for president! He has no experience or plan for how to deal with the invading army at the gates, no experience or plan to deal with the crashed economy… nothing. But despite all that, riding the back of viral comedy sketches, the country votes en mass to make a late night comedian the president. In any sane world, this could never happen, but this is exactly what happened this weekend in Ukraine.

RELATED: Rob Schneider calls out comedians, says vitriol is making Americans bitter

Volodymyr Zelensky declared victory last night as he stood on a stage in front of his campaign headquarters just after the polls closed. The theme song for his late-night comedy show played in the background. His opponent, the previous Ukrainian president, had already conceded defeat before results even started coming in. There was no need. The comedian straight TROUNCED the former president, winning over 73% of the vote.

For Ukrainians, the stakes could never be higher. The Russians are quite literally at their throats. They've already annexed Crimea, and Russian backed separatists have seized nearly all of Eastern Ukraine. The media rarely talks about it, but there has been an ongoing war in Ukraine ever since 2014. Over thirteen thousand Ukrainians have died. The economy has basically collapsed… it's in shambles. Common sense would seem to dictate that an established leader or expert would be required to see the crippled country through this… but Ukraine chose the late-night comedian.

Zelensky rose to fame criticizing the sitting president through viral comedy sketches. His bits went viral on social media. He never once stated any policy or solutions. Half the time his admirers didn't know who they were watching during his campaign rallies. Was he in character for one of his sketches or was he being serious? But that didn't seem to matter. He was funny, and young people smashed that LIKE and SHARE button like crazy… so now he's president.

So what does this mean? This isn't just some crazy Eastern Europe phenomenon. For the entire world, the wheel is now… broken.

So what does this mean? This isn't just some crazy Eastern Europe phenomenon. For the entire world, the wheel is now… broken. Everyone is sick and tired of the lies, broken promises and a general feeling of being ignored. You see it literally everywhere. Donald Trump was elected because of this. The country was tired of being ignored and lied to over immigration, the economy and jobs. Look what's happening in France. The French elected an empty suit. Now their streets look like a war zone every Saturday and Sunday.

The old way is busted, and people are sick of it. Change on a scale we've never seen before is coming. Every time you hear "oh that person could never become president… all they do is post stupid comments on Instagram", remember how they said similar things about Donald Trump. Every time we mock people like Alexandria Occasional Cortex… remember the comedian from Ukraine. It's a new era, and the old way of doing things is coming to an end. The wheel is broken, and the future is anyone's guess.

Helicopters whir above-head, over the zebras and the owls and the pythons. Police cars roar down the crowded street, full of smoke and chaos. Ambulances scream past the gates of the National Zoo of Sri Lanka.

On the other side of the fence, a hotel full of tourists from all over the world, here to celebrate Easter, but unable to, trapped in the rubble or blind with confusion, a deafening-white ringing in their ears.

RELATED: Rabbi Daniel Lapin | Episode 25

Just before 9:00 yesterday morning, explosions shook the air. Churches were packed with brightly dressed people, on Easter Sunday. The bombs ripped apart three churches.

Yesterday, a day of peace. Of hope. Of the resurrection of Man despite our darkest moments. The day celebrating the resurrection of Christ. It became a day of blood and ash and screaming and loss. Nine bombings. 207 people dead. 450 wounded. All chosen specifically for their religious beliefs. Literally targeted at their churches.

Some people did something, all right.

Sri Lanka has been plagued by violence throughout its history, but it's been nearly a decade since the end of its civil war. And yesterday had nothing to do with Sri Lankan politics and everything to do with religious persecution.

Christians were specifically targeted. There's no doubt. Christians. Worshippers of Christ. Believers in Christianity. Christians.

Christians were specifically targeted. There's no doubt. Christians. Worshippers of Christ. Believers in Christianity. Christians. Not "Easter worshippers." "Easter worshippers" seemed to be the descriptor of the day yesterday. How's that for a coordinated response. They were Christians. In their place of worship.

Christians face a new persecution, a growing persecution.

On Easter, Jesus preformed a miracle by rising from the dead. But perhaps we are so close to being lost into nothingness that it will look like a miracle if Christians even begin to stand up — in defense of their own faith.

But we must. We have to.

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


Sri Lanka bombing reminds us Christians are under attack youtu.be


The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

18. Wayne Messam - 13.4 (out of 100)

Troy McClure voice: "You may remember him from such college football teams as the Florida State Seminoles in the mid 1990's.

Look, there's no way someone is going from a small city mayor directly to the White House.

Forget I said that as you read on.

17. Marianne Williamson - 17.1

Williamson is a new age "spiritual advisor" to celebrities like Kim Kardashian. She's firmly in the Bernie Sanders wing of the party (which more and more seems like the only wing of the party.)

If you want to make an argument for Williamson making an impact, it starts with people like the Kardashians spamming their social media following like Marianne is the new Fyre Festival.

Unfortunately, they sort of already did that last time when Marianne ran for congress in 2014, and she still finished fourth.

16. Eric Swalwell - 20.2

Swalwell provides very little that is different than your typical left-wing candidate policy wise. But, he really likes seeing himself on TV, and he's willing to say outlandish things for attention. This raises his profile slightly above the hundreds of other representatives that you've never heard of, and that's what this run is all about.

There's a certain brand of presidential candidate that isn't really running for president. That's Eric Swalwell.

15. John Delaney - 20.3

John Delaney has been a candidate for 2020 since you were a small child. He announced his candidacy in July of 2017, which makes it more depressing that you didn't know he was running.

He was a businessman and then congressman in Maryland for six years. He was running for president for about a third of that time.

To his credit, Delaney is one of the few democrats attempting a run as a moderate. He actually will admit that capitalism has done good things, and opposes the socialist edges of the party, being one of the only candidates who will stand up against Medicare for All. He's a throwback to the old days of the Democratic Party... like 2012.

14. Tim Ryan - 20.7

Ryan doesn't think he's going to be president, but there's probably some very unlikely path to be in the running for VP. He's from Ohio and... probably has other things that are interesting about him. He's another somewhat moderate option, which makes it nearly impossible to win in a party who is falling all over itself to nuzzle up next to Che.

13. Tulsi Gabbard - 25.9

Gabbard is a strange candidate, which sort of makes her interesting. Her current collection of policy preferences is hard to differentiate from the Bernie/Socialist group.

Oddly, she has a history of taking strong positions against the LGBT party line, including supporting groups pitching gay conversion therapy. Her father was an activist in this world for a long time. She says she no longer believes in those things.

She seems to be the head of the Bashir Al Assad fan club (member #2). The other member of the fan club is David Duke, who has actually endorsed Gabbard in the past. On top of all of this, she's about twenty-five times better looking than the typical David Duke endorsee, and she interviews like a dull foreign policy wonk. It's hard to imagine her path to the nomination, but a VP consideration isn't out of the question. There's a lot of baggage to deal with however.

Whatever strain of the flu that allows Alex Jones to be besties with Cynthia McKinney, that's what Tulsi Gabbard has.

12. Andrew Yang - 27.1

Yang gang unite! Andrew Yang is a tech entrepreneur who has made some noise on the inter-webs talking a lot about the future of technology and universal basic income. Give him credit for at least attempting to talk about important issues, and for outlining a lengthy list of policy proposals. He's smart and actually makes some sense occasionally. The prediction markets sure do love him, showing the limitation of prediction markets.

As the only candidate to outline an anti-circumcision position, he leads the field in commentary about the private parts of male babies.

11. Jay Inslee - 30.4

See: Lindsay Graham 2016.

Like Graham in 2016 who was running a one issue campaign around hawkish foreign policy, Inslee is running a one issue campaign around hawkishly fighting the weather.

He does have executive experience as governor of Washington, which is something. He might be fighting for a shot at VP, but realistically he's in the race to try and force the frontrunners left on the climate.

Whether he can stop the evil burning orb in the sky is still unknown.

10. John Hickenlooper - Score: 32

Hickenlooper is a former governor running on his executive experience. He's portraying himself as a moderate, which is probably true in this field, or in the former Soviet Union.

As a purple state governor with some non-socialist tendencies, one could see him pairing well as the VP for someone like Kamala Harris or Cory Booker. However, you have to wonder if the Democrats want to pick yet another hard-to-remember-vanilla-zilch of a VP candidate, following the disaster of Tim Kaine.

Also, it's hard to imagine a president with the last name of Hickenlooper.

9. Julian Castro - 36.2

There was a time when Julian Castro had the glow of an Obama approved up and comer. Think of Castro as a big high school football recruit, that won a full scholarship at an SEC school. But after a few mediocre seasons, he's going late in mock drafts.

On paper, Castro should be in the mix, but it just doesn't seem to be happening. It reminds me of Bobby Jindal's run in 2016, except Castro has nowhere near the actual record of Jindal.

On a positive note, he has a twin brother, so if Julian wins the White House and disappoints, we can probably switch everything over to his brother pretty easily. I'm pretty sure that's in the Constitution.

8. Kirsten Gillibrand - 37.8

Gillibrand started as a moderate, transformed into someone from the far left, and contorted herself to fit in to every big news cycle. She became the most prominent voice for the #MeToo movement when she took the bravely calculated stand to call for Al Franken's resignation.

The problem is, Gillibrand didn't realize that the left had little interest in consistently enforcing these new standards. They didn't actually care about #MeToo when it meant getting rid of a mediocre-yet-beloved comedian who voted the right way.

Now her support of a woman who "told her truth" about an alleged series of assaults with photographic evidence is her Achilles' heel. Apparently #BelieveAllWomen has its limits.

This was supposed to be Kirsten Gillibrand's time. But, it looks like #TimesUp.

7. Amy Klobuchar - 45.5

The case for a Klobuchar candidacy is a decent one. She's a woman from the Midwest, who has consistently out-preformed her electoral expectations. For example, in Beto O'Rourke's highly praised Senate run against Ted Cruz, he outperformed the average Democratic house candidate by 4 points. Klobuchar outperformed the average by 13.

If she runs a great campaign, she has a shot. Even if all she can accomplish is to stay mostly mistake free, she should be in the top tier for a potential VP nod.

I know this all sounds really positive, but I'm only saying it so Klobuchar doesn't throw something at me.

6. Elizabeth Warren - 46.0

Elizabeth Warren is not a good candidate. She's almost as crazy on policy as Bernie, she gaffes like Biden, and she's as likable as Hayden Christensen's performance in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. She shows no ability to deal with the pressure that Donald Trump will bring to the campaign, and when she tries to act naturally, she is as convincing as Hayden Christensen's performance in Star Wars: The Attack of the Clones.

Warren does have a following, a real point of view, and she's one of the only candidates who actually seems to release policy plans. The problem is her policies are basically Marxist-blogger fever dreams, such as a wealth tax and nationalizing a large portion of the prescription drug industry. These ideas are of the quality of Hayden Christensen's performance in the Star Wars: The Attack of the Clones.

The bottom line is only a completely insane party would again run Hillary Clinton: Part 2 against Trump. It would be like casting Hayden Christensen in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.

5. Cory Booker - 55.5

There's a moment in the bloopers during closing credits of some Jim Carrey movie, where they prank him by calling him an "overactor." (It doesn't sound like much, but it's a lot better than his crappy paintings.) Cory Booker makes a Jim Carrey performance look like it's full of subtle nuance.

Booker simply tries too hard. The bulging eyes, the screaming, the explosive Spartacussing — it's just tiring. It's also part of Booker's act. He's in a constant battle to portray what he thinks any given audience wants him to be. Unfortunately, you can feel him doing it, and his lack of authenticity will likely be his downfall. He's also far too attention hungry to work as a vice presidential pick, which leaves his options as limited as his charisma.

4. Pete Buttigieg - 62.9

Two things you need to know about Mayor Pete.

First, his name is pronounced thusly: Boot-edge-edge.

Second, he's openly gay. The reason you need to know he's openly gay is because you should not be prejudiced against people who are openly gay. You are obviously an evil person, as evidenced by your visit to this website, and need to understand that being openly gay doesn't mean you aren't capable of governing in an effective matter. This means treating him like he's any other boring white guy.

However, you shouldn't just treat him as if he's any other boring white guy. This is historic!!! You must focus on the fact that he is openly gay, revel in the history his candidacy provides, and say the phrase "openly gay" approximately 457,034 times per day.

To summarize, always forget and focus on while always remembering and ignoring the fact that he's openly gay.

Oh yeah. Also, Buttigieg is a veteran, is a Rhodes Scholar, a calm and effective speaker, has support from some former Obama officials, and has exceeded all expectations so far. He's the mayor of Pawnee, Indiana, so he is uniquely qualified to solve our nation's bus scheduling and pot hole filling needs.

Finally, he is openly gay.

3. Robert Francis O’Rourke - 62.9

While Beto O'Rourke isn't actually Hispanic, he really hopes you think he is. Or at least he hopes you think he's more Hispanic than your average white Irishman.

O'Rourke is one of the exciting new breed of Democratic candidates that are most famous for losing elections, falling short of defeating Ted Cruz in his 2018 Senate race.

Bob Frank O'Rourke's path to the nomination is paved with massive fundraising, the ability to entertain millions of "Now This" YouTube subscribers with nonsensical platitudes about the rights of below average quarterbacks, and being the candidate with the most disturbing use of his hands since Joe Biden.

Flailing, is a word commonly used to describe both his hands and his campaign.

2. Bernie Sanders - 68.3

In 2013, Bernie Sanders proposed Medicare For All and welcomed exactly zero co-sponsors. Now, supporting Medicare For All is basically a litmus test to be allowed into the party.

We've come so far, so fast.

Sanders earns points for being the Democrat who most consistently will actually admit he's a socialist. As the party has moved towards him, he has moved even further left. You're not going to out-socialist a guy who went to the Soviet Union on his honeymoon.

Revisionist historians like to make the case that Bernie was the rightful winner of the nomination in 2016. But, this is nonsense. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the primary by 12 points. Debbie Wasserman Schultz can barely dress herself in the morning, let alone exude the competence to move four million votes to Hillary Clinton.

A Sanders nomination is a risky path for Democrats.

Do you really want to go from losing with Hillary Clinton, to a dude six years older that is best known for losing to Hillary Clinton?

1. Kamala Harris - 69.1

Kamala Harris has a lot going for her. She's a fresh face nationally, largely falls in line with the activist left on policy, and is one of the only Democrats running who isn't even trying to hide taking money from big donors. She has a wealthy base of support in California, has run a smooth campaign early on, and hits enough intersectional lines to please the woke masses.

Harris has a history as a sometimes strict prosecutor, district attorney, and attorney general which seems a little too "law and order" for a Democratic primary audience. But the things your opponents leak against you in the primary are the things you feature in your own commercials in the general.

She is used to high pressure situations and likely won't fold under a Donald Trump style barrage like Hillary Clinton did. She comes off as likable and personable (to some), and if she can get through the primary, she's not going to be a pushover. The media does the Republican party endless favors by focusing on a relative dunce like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when this face of socialism is a far more astute and realistic threat to the priorities of the right.

Is she too far left to be elected in the United States? In any other time, sure. But, when it comes down to a one-on-one battle in a country largely locked into a structure based on binary choice, anything can happen.

Some might find it odd for the democrats to pick a candidate that benefited in her career from an extramarital workplace affair with a powerful man more than twice her age. Potential hashtag: #MeTooPartTwoSometimesItWorksOutGreat!

To be fair, her affair was with Willie Brown, just a decade or so after he was named one of 1984's 10 sexiest men in America by Playgirl magazine. Who could resist such an attractive job opportunity?

The following is part of an ongoing experiment by Glenn Beck program heartthrob, Stu Burguiere, to begin watching Game of Thrones in its final season, without any previous context. Other than highlights shown in commercials, Stu has never seen a second of Game of Thrones, and has never read a word about its characters or plot lines.

Before embarking on this project, Stu's summary of the series was:

  • There is a battle over who controls the throne(s)?
  • Lots of people watch it
  • There is a lot of violence and/or nudity involved
  • There are dragons that fly around

Spoiler alert: you are about to read information about Game of Thrones that would definitely be considered spoilers, if it was possible to decode what Stu was talking about.

Season 8 | Episode 1

  • Theme animation very long.
  • Theme is still going.

Some possibly important cast members:

Blondie wearing white (henceforth referred to as Blondie)

Screenshot

Guy with goatee (Goatee guy)

Screenshot

Uglier black haired woman

Screenshot

Guy with beard: Literally, any one of thousands on the show. (Come one Stu, we need specifics!)
Angry elf

Screenshot

Ugly peasant girl might be the same as uglier black haired woman (Yes Stu, yes it was)
Red haired woman (Redhead)

Screenshot

Boyband looking teen (boyband teen)

Screenshot

Queen that looks like child of Mick Jagger and Robin Wright

Screenshot

Sex recipient

Screenshot

Old guy

Screenshot

Curly hair guy

Screenshot

Ugly ship woman

Screenshot

So far, no spoilers and very little info. There may or may not be spoilers, if you can understand any of it that is.

  • Boyband teen appears to be son of Goatee
  • Winterfell is a place
  • Goatee guy was maybe a king of Winterfell, but isn't anymore
  • "The North" is maybe the same as Winterfell
  • Angry Elf, Goatee guy, Blondie, and Redhead now on same team? This seems new?
  • Blondie seems to be like Siegfried and Roy for dragons
  • Angry Elf married to Redhead?
  • People seem to be more attractive than I would expect from their difficult circumstances
  • Goatee guy and Ugly peasant girl like the same sword
  • "The dead have broken through the wall" —seems important.
  • "If you want a whore, buy one. If you want a queen, earn one." Heard that one before.
  • Guy interrupted while having sex with three women. He only seems moderately bothered by this.
  • Old guy gives sex recipient a crossbow
  • Lots of people killed by curly hair guy while rescuing ugly ship woman
  • Ugly ship woman head butts curly hair guy for some reason
  • Teeth: better than expected
  • "What is dead may never die…but kill the bastards anyway." They seem to be fighting zombies
  • Goatee guy and RedHead are brother and sister I think
  • Goatee guy and Blondie ride dragons
  • Blondie is not helpful with dragon riding tips
  • Blondie is a Queen maybe?
  • DOZED OFF MISSED A FEW MINUTES AT LEAST
  • Woke up to screaming as woman is burned alive
  • Some guy and Boyband teen look at each other at the end as if it's important

Watch the clip below and see how things unfolded on radio Tuesday.


Game of Thrones, as experienced by someone who has never watched Game of Thrones youtu.be