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.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.

President Donald Trump has done a remarkable job of keeping his campaign promises so far. From pulling the US from the Iran Deal and Paris Climate Accord to moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, the president has followed through on his campaign trail vows.

RELATED: The media's derangement over Trump has me wearing a new hat and predicting THIS for 2020

“It's quite remarkable. I don't know if anybody remembers, but I was the guy who was saying he's not gonna do any of those things," joked Glenn on “The News and Why it Matters," adding, “He has taken massive steps, massive movement or completed each of those promises … I am blown away."

Watch the video above to hear Glenn Beck, Sara Gonzales, Doc Thompson, Stu Burguiere and Pat Gray discuss the story.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."