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.

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.

The violent crime rate in the United States has continued to decline every year since 1991 and last year the violent crime rate nationwide was down another 3% from the previous year.

Unfortunately for the people living in Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, represented by Ilhan Omar (D), this trend toward a safer and more secure America does not apply in Minneapolis. In fact, Minneapolis police report a 53% increase in robberies since the controversial congresswoman took office in January 2019.

Minneapolis has also become the terrorist recruitment capital of the U.S. More people in Rep. Omar's district have either joined or attempted to join terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, al-Shabab, and ISIS, than any other place in the nation.

So, how is Rep. Omar addressing these issues? Is it just a coincidence that Minneapolis' representative in Congress is known for sowing division and hatred?

Watch this clip to hear Glenn break down the situation in Rep. Omar's district:

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.