Obama's Advisers Fighting for Revolution?




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

The most transparent White House in the history of the world still hasn't answered the questions we asked last week. You know, tough questions like: "Why does the president have so many Marxists, socialists, radicals and self-proclaimed communists advising him?"

I'm still hopeful there is a simple explanation. Maybe President Obama just wasn't aware of their radical beliefs. After all, he sat in Reverend Wright's pews for 20 years and didn't catch on to the fact that Wright isn't too fond of America.

But here's The One Thing: This isn't an accident. Obama's radical advisers are there for a reason: They're fighting a revolution — just not the kind with the tri-cornered hats.

So don't expect the White House to apologize for hiring self-avowed communist green jobs "czar" Van Jones. If they did, Van might take offense to that — considering he named his son after a militant Marxist guerilla. Besides, why would the White House waste their time on this when liberal bloggers are doing their best to defend Van's good name and his Wikipedia page is suddenly and mysteriously being updated to call him a "champion of market-based solutions?"

You see, Van Jones can't possibly be a communist. Take it from former colleague Eva Paterson, who is president of the Equal Justice Society. Paterson admits that yes, for a while there Van was running around spouting 1960s rhetoric and romanticizing revolutionary icons (who hasn't?) But that was years ago, she said.

Well, I'm not a mathematician, but remember Van Jones' own description of his conversion to communism?

"In jail I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of. I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary'.... I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th... by August, I was a communist."

That was in 1992 — plus 10 years — that's 2002 — way back in Bush's first term. But Eva, apparently the lone free-market warrior at the Equal Justice Society says she advised Van to: "Rethink his tactics" and to "work for change in wiser ways."

Note: Not denounce or rethink Communism — just change tactics.

Where's the "come to Jefferson" moment in this change? He doesn't have one. Here's about the only transformation he's ever talked about — from a 2005 interview: "I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends."

This guy is still a radical — just like Cass Sunstein and John Holdren and Carol Browner and Mark Lloyd.

Some might be uncomfortable calling these individuals "radical" or "revolutionary," but I'm not.

The best thing to do is ask America, are you comfortable with their viewpoints? Like this one: On Friday, Drudge had the story of the 55-page bill proposed by Senator Jay Rockefeller (S.773) that would allow the president to seize temporary control of private sector networks during a "cyber-security emergency."

The bill also proposed a "federal certification program" for "cyber-security professionals," certain computer systems and networks in the private sector would have to be operated by those with that license. And private networks deemed "critical" by the government "shall share" requested information with the federal government.

Ten years ago, I might have been stupid enough to go for this, but not after I watched the Bush administration grab far too much power. And now this administration trying to take control over seemingly everything. We already know how the president's chief of staff feels about "taking advantage of a crisis."

I'm not willing to go down that road and give them any more power.

This is not good Republicans vs. good Democrats — they respect the Constitution. They understand freedom of speech. It's the clowns in Washington.

You clamp down on my freedom of speech, who's next? Republicans, Democrats, Independents, it's time to stop spearing each other in the chest and realize there are enemies to our Constitution both foreign and domestic. And right now, those enemies are taking shape as greedy and power hungry politicians — aided by serious Marxist revolutionaries.

• Is Beck right? Click here and sound off

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

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Pat Gray discussed the Trump defense team's arguments in the Senate impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.

"This is different than what the Democrats were doing," Glenn said of the Trump team's impeachment defense. "We know the case of the Democrats, they just kept going over and over and over, for three days, the same stuff. The Republicans, at least on Saturday, did not ... and I thought it was really, really good."

Glenn added, "The president's defense was very compelling."

Watch the videos below to hear Glenn's top takeaways from the president's defense team:

Part 1: Why the president's defense is 'very compelling'

Part 2: Top takeaways from president's impeachment defense

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Americans are getting crushed by healthcare costs. In 2018 alone, we spent $3.6 trillion on healthcare — that's more than $11,000 per American and nearly a fifth of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It's on everyone's minds, which is why it has taken center stage in the Democratic party's primary. Of course, the solutions offered by the current crop of presidential candidates would do nothing to help alleviate that enormous spending. In fact, it would only add to it — what with Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All and Joe Biden's proposed ObamaCare expansion.

However, what also deserves attention in discussions about plans that increase the government's role in health care is how religious organizations would be affected. Faith-based hospitals and health care sharing ministries (HCSMs) play an important role in America, often serving as a critical provider and/or facilitator of payments for medical services in many states. If plans like Medicare for All were implemented, these groups would be at risk of going bankrupt or being severely curtailed due to the elimination of choice that comes with these proposals.

Instead of imposing a top-down and expensive health care system overhaul, faith-based providers and groups should be allowed to continue offering a variety of plans that work as high-quality, often cheaper alternatives. And more Americans should consider them.

Instead of imposing a top-down and expensive health care system overhaul, faith-based providers and groups should be allowed to continue offering a variety of plans that work as high-quality, often cheaper alternatives.

As mentioned, one such option is a health care sharing ministry. In this model, individuals contribute money into a pool managed by a religiously or ethically-affiliated organization, and costs for medical treatment are shared by people who adhere to that organization's belief system. Typically, applicants are required to sign a statement of faith in order to be accepted. It's basically like a subscription service: consumers pay a set amount of money into the ministry every month. Then, when they have a medical need or incident, they submit a claim to the ministry. Members whose claims are approved are reimbursed by the ministry from that pool of funds. Note, these ministries don't cover procedures they deem immoral.

Because providers are often getting paid in cash under this model — and typically within 90 days — patients are able to negotiate significant discounts, in some cases slicing procedures' costs to a fraction of the initial price. Insurance companies, by comparison, tend to not pay dollar for dollar on claims, and certainly not in cash. Additionally, insurance companies usually have onerous paperwork requirements, forcing doctors to spend half of their time on electronic health records and desk work. This increase in demand for administrative work is partly responsible for the United States leading the world in administrative costs in healthcare.

There are various types of HCSMs, each offering different benefits depending on what the individual needs — and a lot of savings on monthly plans. Take Christian Healthcare Ministries, for example. It's resulted in enormous savings for its members. Whereas the average healthcare plan can cost about $400 a month on the low end (with high deductibles), CHM plans can run between $78-172 a month for a single person. These kinds of plans are particularly great options for people who are relatively healthy and young, where the need for doctors and prescription drugs is less likely.

HCSMs have seen explosive growth in popularity recently. In 2014, there were only approximately 160,000 members. By 2018, membership ballooned to about 1 million HCSM members around the United States who have shared over $1 billion in medical expenses. But unfortunately, many people still feel locked into the traditional — and expensive — health care insurance model. HCSMs provide a way out, and, depending on their belief system, people should research them and see if there's one that best suit their needs. If more people deviate away from the traditional health care insurance market, insurance companies would be incentivized to adjust their pricing. That won't be possible, of course, if plans like Medicare for All are implemented.

Health care is one of life's biggest expenses, and voters are understandably desperate for a plan that cuts costs without compromising quality of care or access to it. Alternative options to health care insurance such as HCSMs are practical, free-market solutions that saves money. Americans should sift through these options before subscribing to plans that will only break the bank.

James Czerniawski is a Young Voices contributor. Follow him on Twitter @JamesCz19.

Bill O'Reilly: Adam Schiff is in 'wonderland' during the Senate impeachment trial

Image source: BlazeTV video screen save

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Friday, Bill O'Reilly gave his latest take on the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and explained why he thinks House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is like "Alice in Wonderland."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

youtu.be


Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Friday to discuss the latest developments in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

According to Cruz, Thursday was a "very consequential day" in the otherwise tedious and redundant impeachment proceedings.

"Yesterday, the House managers effectively threw Joe Biden under the bus," Cruz said. "They doubled down on what they started doing on the first day of arguments, which was making their entire case ... based on the proposition that there was zero evidence to justify investigating Burisma [the Ukrainian natural gas company that paid then-Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, $50,000 a month to sit on the board]."

Cruz went on to explain that every time the Democrats, namely House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), rehash the "zero-evidence" argument, they open the door for Republicans to present the overwhelming evidence that contradicts those claims.

"That proposition, that there's zero evidence to investigate Burisma, is utterly and completely absurd. So, I'm looking forward to Saturday when the president's lawyers will begin presenting his case. Because what the Democrats have done, is they have opened the door to this. And I hope the president's lawyers will stand up and systematically lay out the case," Cruz said.

"They've been arguing that Hunter Biden is completely irrelevant to this case. Well, the House managers have now, through their arguments, made Hunter Biden not only relevant — he was always relevant — but critical now," he continued. "They built the entire case, like a house of cards, on the proposition that there was no reasonable basis to investigate Burisma. And that's just absurd."

The two also discussed Cruz's new podcast, "Verdict with Ted Cruz," which he records with Daily Wire host Michael Knowles each night following the Senate trial.

"Last night's podcast went through systematically ... all of the overwhelming evidence of corruption from Burisma that any president, not only had the authority to investigate, but the responsibility to investigate," Cruz said. "And that, ultimately, is why President Trump is going to be acquitted at the end of this process."

Watch the video below for more details:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.