Glenn Beck: More Van Jones lunacy



Free audio, click here to listen

GLENN: Okay, so here's the thing. This is back way back in '09, February of '09. And this is in Berkeley, California?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. So it's got to be good. Now, somebody in Berkeley I understand asked him a question that I'd like to ask him. Here it is.

(Audio plays).

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You can barely hear it. She says some people are saying, and what I'd like an answer to is are you a Marxist and some of the policies that you are advocating sound Marxist. Here it is.

(Audio plays)

GLENN: Stop. Stop, stop. University of California‑Berkeley. Sounds kind of Marxist. Why do you suppose they're laughing? Are they laughing because that's a ridiculous question or are they laughing ‑‑

PAT: No.

GLENN: Of course it is. Of course it is. You decide. But here's his answer.



Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...


(Audio plays)

VOICE: How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year?

GLENN: Stop. His response, are these Marxist policies, how's that capitalism working out for you. Not just once. Three times. How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year? This is February '09. Okay. So then he says, look, I'm the best friend of capitalists. Listen to this.


in this page of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this page of the struggle.

GLENN: Stop. This is important. We want to make sure it's in context. At this stage of the struggle, and I want to stress that it is only at this stage of the struggle. Stu, you watch the entire speech. What are the ‑‑ what does that mean?

STU: Well, he's talking about the fight to bring back what's right obviously, the justice and democracy and all the things that hope and change is supposed to provide for us.

GLENN: Democracy is code, Democratic elections, et cetera, et cetera. Because remember we're not a democracy. If you want to look at it through the progressive eyes, they changed us in language from a republic to a democracy. The reason why they did that is because the same reason why Chavez ‑‑ they even make this case with Iran. Iran, those were Democratic elections. Really? The people want to be stoned to death in the square? Really, that's what that is? They were elected through the Democratic process. Hugo Chavez, he campaigned not as a communist, not as a dictator. He just did the things he didn't want to do. He just had to do because, well, there were some evil forces out there and there were some emergencies. He didn't campaign as a communist or a dictator. He became one because he had to. And he was elected through the Democratic process.

STU: And this is part of his answer to the previous thing that we heard about Marxism. And he's explaining that, you know, he's working within the system. He's working with businesses and he's trying to make things green through the system at the moment and then he ‑‑

GLENN: At the moment.

PAT: But we heard yesterday or we heard this morning, too, what he wants to do with the system.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's working through the system now. But the system has to change.

GLENN: Play it again. Play it again, the system has to change. Remember ‑‑

VAN JONES: This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system. We're going to change the whole thing.

GLENN: Stop. Okay, now, here is his ‑‑ here is his statement on how he's the best friend of capitalists at this stage in code language, the struggle.

VAN JONES: In this stage of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best (inaudible) capitalist ever had. Thank you very much.

(Applause).

GLENN: What do you think that means? What do you think that means? I mean, America ‑‑

PAT: You are taking that out of context. That's just one thing he said, at that moment. That's one thing he said.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: I notice you didn't play the entire hour and a half. Why?

GLENN: It's available. It's available.

STU: It's the only thing he said at that moment, Pat, that's correct.

PAT: That's the only thing I'm saying at that moment, you took it out of context.

GLENN: Listen to how insidious this is. Listen to him again the way he says, "And I will only tell you about this stage of the struggle." This has areas in it that we're going to highlight here in a second that get extraordinarily dark. Listen to what he said here.

VAN JONES: In this stage of the struggle.

GLENN: Listen to what he said.

VAN JONES: And I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best (inaudible) capitalist ever had. Thank you very much.

GLENN: Okay. Now, let me just hit one more. This will be Cut 7. One more on the game that we're playing. They have to be very careful with their language because they can't come out and say, "I'm a communist." I mean, he has. And he seems to be getting away with it, which is weird. You have to be a detective. Why? Well, let Van Jones himself explain why.

VAN JONES: And this won't ‑‑ we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have to prepare ourselves. We can't just push the people. We can push for (inaudible), but the people ‑‑ it must be a dance, you know. We have to listen, listen, listen, listen. And then learn. And then co‑lead, try to coauthor a different future with folks. And we have to assume that's going to take a long time, but sometimes what should have taken another 20 years, Barack Hussein Obama, can take a season.

GLENN: I mean, America, am I wrong? Where is the press? We have listened to how insidious that was. We have to listen, listen and learn and maybe coauthor. And what should have taken 20 years, sometimes it only takes a season. Listen again to the very beginning of Cut 7. I want you to listen because he doesn't say "Will take." He says "Won't." Listen carefully.

VAN JONES: And this won't ‑‑ we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have ‑‑

GLENN: Stop. We have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. I'm telling you something wicked this way comes. I pray every night for more time. I don't know what anyone has in mind, but they are very well aware of an event. An event is coming and they will use that event to seize power. You are looking at the administration of Chavez. Stu is looking at me like, how do you ‑‑ how am I not saying? Listen to Cut, listen to Cut 2 and you tell me. You tell ‑‑ Stu, help me out here.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Tell me how someone can say these things. This is the game plan of Chavez. And unless the president comes out and says, "Hey, hey, hey, I didn't know any of these things," get out, get away. I disavow all of these things. You have to assume ‑‑ isn't it reasonable ‑‑ if it's not, help me out. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the president knows about it and is with it?

STU: Well, I mean, it's ‑‑ you can certainly make the argument, I'm sure they would, this is one guy in his administration, he's working on one specific task, he's ‑‑ you know, he may or may not have known about this speech. I don't know. But he is one of the ‑‑ it doesn't mean that ‑‑ I think you can make a legitimate case, a very obvious case that Van Jones wants that. I mean, Van Jones clearly and seemingly outwardly is pushing for ‑‑

GLENN: America must stand up. Then America must stand up. You are looking ‑‑ then let me rephrase. You are looking at a man who I truly believe could be a member of the Chavez administration, and America must stand up and ask this administration: Are you a Chavez administration or are you an American administration. Are you ‑‑ do you believe in capitalism, do you believe in the Constitution, do you believe in the founding of our country or do you believe in a strongman. And here's why I say a strongman. And I'm telling you, you know when people say that Barack Obama ‑‑ play the place where he says, you know, we need to have a civilian military that is as well funded, et cetera, et cetera. People are saying, no, he just wants a ‑‑ you know, he just wants a diplomatic corps. A diplomatic corps? You don't call that a civilian security force. That's not what that's called. That's called a diplomatic corps, not a civilian security force. Here's what he said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that 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.

GLENN: Okay, stop. I'm telling you I am putting some pieces together of Van Jones and some other events that are going on that are terrifying. And I am not going to bring them to you until I have all of the pieces and make sure that all of them have been vetted six ways to Sunday. But here I will give you a piece in his own words. If you're looking for a leader that is the guy who's going to put the boots on the ground, who knows how to, knows how to engage people in fear and scare tactics and bullying and revolutionary tactics, it's Van Jones. Now, here's one piece. Play just the beginning of this. This is what has been heard before. I'm not going to, quote, selectively edit because this is not about the Republicans. There is so much more. This has just come out. Listen to this.

VOICE: How were the Republicans able to push things through when they had less than 60 senators but somehow we can't?

VAN JONES: Well, the answer to that is they're [ BLEEP ].

GLENN: Okay, stop. The Republicans are A‑holes. That's his answer and that's the one that's going around on the Internet right now. I have to take a break because of the network restrictions here, but when I come back I'm going to play the rest of it and... friends, Americans, countrymen, you tell me this is about the Republicans and you tell me this man isn't just a communist, a revolutionary, in his own words. I believe this man is a danger to the republic, a real danger.

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9.

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?