Glenn Beck: What Would Sotomayor Do?

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

The Obamas are doing all they can to bring the Olympics their beloved Chicago.

Michelle Obama even used the word "sacrifice" to explain it. In Denmark Wednesday, she said: "That's what excites me most about bringing the games to Chicago... as much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days."

Wow, what a sacrifice: Flying on your private jumbo jet to go have lunch with the queen — how do you do it?

But, sacrifice or not, you can see why everyone wants the games — we'll get to watch the Bolivian and the Guatemalan canoe squads paddle down the harbor! And be treated to Cameroon and Micronesia squaring off in the table tennis finals.

And it can all be yours for just $5 billion!

Oh Glenn, stop! The Olympics will help the city make the money back. I saw a study that showed they'd make $22 billion!

Yes, I saw that study too. It was an "independent study" from the group Chicago 2016 — so you can trust that figure, just like you can trust Mayor Daley:


CHICAGO MAYOR RICHARD DALEY: At no time will taxpayer money be used that is the key.

DALEY: The Olympics must not be a financial burden to taxpayers.

DALEY: There will be no government money, taxpayers' money regarding the Olympics

DALEY: The risk of taxpayers hosting the games is small.


Here's a guy who told taxpayers they wouldn't pay a dime for the Olympics, but two days later taxpayers were suddenly on the hook for "up to $500 million of any Olympic shortfall." Then back in June, Daley guaranteed that the city would cover "any shortfalls" even those beyond the $500 million.

Look, I'm sure it's just the Olympic thing — you can trust Mayor Daley: Only 47 in his administration have been convicted on corruption charges since 2004.

But let me cut the White House off at the past, because I can see their blog correction now and I want to make it clear: Only 47 other people have been convicted — not Daley.

Chicago residents have had enough: 84 percent oppose funding the Olympics in any way; because they know their politicians — they'd be funding shady deals and they're sick of it.

They're sick of being humiliated by corrupt politicians. They're sick of massive tax hikes. They're sick of the $225 million city deficit.

They're sick of colossal screw-ups like the parking meter deal, where the city leased its parking meters to a private company, who then quadrupled the rates. If the city just kept the meters and raised the rates they would have made another $974 million (on top of what they leased it for).

Is it any wonder Chicagoans are skeptical the city can pull this off and not blow past the Olympic budget by, say, $25 billion, like they did in Beijing last year; or Montreal's $2.8 billion in 1976; or the billions Athens went over in 2004; or the $8 billion London is already over-budget on?

Why risk $5 billion (or likely more) for the best-case scenario of breaking even or making a couple hundred million like Los Angeles in 1984? Would you risk $20,000 for the best-case scenario of getting about 500 bucks?

Leading the opposition charge is the group Chicagoans for Rio — a group whose viewpoint is shared with at least 45 percent of Chicago residents. Rio de Janeiro is one of the three other cities competing against Chicago for the 2016 games — Madrid and Tokyo are the other two. It's a tough choice: Who should get it?

A good way to choose, and the way the International Olympic Committee normally does it, is to select the city which presents the superior plan; makes the most sense logistically; does the best job organizing; is well-equipped to handle major crowds and sporting events — all of that would make sense, but would it be "fair"?

Why not apply a little "progressive logic" in deciding who gets the games? A little "social justice" as Obama likes to say.

So let's start a segment here on the Olympics: What Would Sotomayor Do?

Rio de Janeiro has a strong case in the social justice world. For 200 years, they were routinely invaded and oppressed by French pirates and buccaneers. Six million out of the 14 million population live in poverty. They have a very high crime rate — about 30 homicides per week in 2007 — progressives everywhere are weeping.

But, on the down side (as progressives see it), Rio is home to many large oil corporations and are the largest oil producer in Brazil. Plus, they have a 125-foot tall statue of Jesus.

What would Sotomayor do?

How about Tokyo? They've had major catastrophes that few other cities would have ever recovered from. A massive earthquake in 1923 that killed about 140,000. Nearly the entire city was wiped out by a World War II bombing campaign (by the evil U.S.) almost as deadly as the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The WWII bombings alone (to progressives) should equal a Lifetime Award of Reparations — even though we helped rebuild the city which less than two decades later hosted an Olympic Games of their own.

What would Sotomayor do?

Let's move on to Madrid. In 2004, their public trains were bombed by Al Qaeda, killing 191 and wounding 1,800 — of course the bombing was because of Spain's initial support of the evil Iraq occupation by the evil U.S. occupiers. So naturally progressives feel very guilty about the attack.

Spain is also "culturally diverse" and in recent years has experienced a massive immigration boom.

On the downside, they engage in and revere animal cruelty — with bullfighting.

What would Sotomayor do?

And then you have Chicago. Chicago ranks the 21st in the U.S. in poverty. They led the nation in murders in 2008. It's called "The Second City" because residents experience mental anguish over constantly being told they are second best. They boast a "multicultural" make-up: White Americans 37.6 percent; African-Americans 35 percent; Asian Americans 5 percent, and 20 percent "other."

On the down side, Chicago was founded in 1833 after a series of wars with the native Indians.

So, who gets the Games? What would Sotomayor do?

Chicago: They oppressed the Indians — so they are out.

Madrid: They are inhumane to animals.

Rio: They were oppressed by the Europeans, but they have big oil.

I think it has to be Tokyo, because while we are good friends now and the big bad United States made our biggest error there.

Here's what Sotomayor would do: She'd have the president go over to Denmark, give a speech on how bad America is for bombing Tokyo, spend all of our money to help them get the games over in Tokyo as reparations and of course, social justice.

Man, I feel so much better. I'm starting to see how this works!

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

For the first time in the history of "The Glenn Beck Program," former President Donald Trump joined Glenn to give his take on America's direction under President Joe Biden compared to his own administration. He explained why Biden's horrific Afghanistan withdrawal was "not even a little bit" like his plan, and why he thinks it was "the most embarrassing event in the history of our country."

Plus, the former president gave his opinion on China's potential takeover of Bagram Air Base, the Pakistani Prime Minister, and Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Glenn asked President Trump how similar the Biden administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan was to his administration's plan.

"Not even a little bit," Trump answered. "We had a great plan, but it was a very tenuous plan. It was based on many conditions. For instance, you can't kill American soldiers. ... You have to understand, I did want to get out. But I wanted to get out with dignity, and I wanted to take our equipment out. And I didn't want soldiers killed. ... What [Biden] did was just indefensible. He took the military out first and he left all the people. And then we became beggars to get the people out. I had a plan to get them out very quickly. But first, the Americans would go out."

Trump told Glenn that his plan included maintaining Bagram Air Base and explained why he would not have left "a single nail" behind in Afghanistan for the Taliban to seize.

"We were going to keep Bagram open," he explained. "We were never going to close that because, frankly, Bagram is more about China than it is about Afghanistan. It was practically on the other border of China. And now we've lost that. And you know who is taking it over? China is taking it over. We spend $10 billion to build that base. It's got the longest, most powerful runways in the world. And China has now got its representatives there and it looks like they'll take it over. Glenn, it's not believable what's happened. You know, they have Apache helicopters. These are really expensive weapons, and they have 28 of them. And they're brand-new. The latest model."

Glenn mentioned recent reports that Gen. Milley, America's top military officer, made "secret phone calls" to his counterpart in China while President Trump was in office.

"I learned early on that he was a dope," Trump said of Gen. Milley. "He made a statement to me — and I guarantee that's what happened to Biden — because I said, 'We're getting out of Afghanistan. We have to do it.' And I said, 'I want every nail. I want every screw. I want every bolt. I want every plane. I want every tank. I want it all out, down to the nails, screws, bolts ... I want every single thing. And he said, 'Sir, it's cheaper to leave it than it is to bring it.'

"The airplane might have cost $40 million, $50 million ... millions and millions of dollars. So, you think it's cheaper to leave it than to have 200 pilots fly over and fly all the equipment out? ... I said, you've got to be nuts. I mean, give me a tank of gas and a pilot and I just picked up a $40 million-dollar airplane. It was amazing. So, I learned early that this guy is a dope. But what he did, is he hurt our country ... and he shouldn't have been allowed to do it. And bad things should happen to him."

Watch the video clip below to catch more of the conversation or find the full interview on 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.

In a shocking but underreported conversation ahead of the G7 Speakers' meeting in London last week, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi admitted that the administration knows China is committing "genocide" against the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang region, but thinks working with the regime on climate change is more important.

On the radio program, an outraged Glenn Beck dissected Pelosi's speech and broke down how — along with the Biden administration's abandonment of Americans in Afghanistan, and the Democrat decision to follow measures of medical "equity" — the far left is revealing how little they really care about human life.

Glenn played a video clip of Pelosi making the following statement:

We've always felt connected to China, but with their military aggression in the South China Sea, with their continuation of genocide with the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province there, with their violation of the cultural, linguistic, religious priority of Tibet, with their suppression of democracy in Hong Kong and other parts of China, as well – they're just getting worse in terms of suppression, and freedom of speech. So, human rights, security, economically [sic].

Having said all of that ... we have to work together on climate. Climate is an overriding issue and China is the leading emitter in the world, the U.S. too and developed world too, but we must work together.

"We have Nancy Pelosi admitting the United States of America knows that they're not only committing [genocide], they're continuing to commit it. Which means, we've known for a while," Glenn noted. "And what does she say? She goes on to say, yes, they're committing genocide against the Uyghurs, but having said that, I'm quoting, 'the overriding issue,' is working together on climate change.

"Would we have worked with Hitler on climate change? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the bomb? Would we have worked with Hitler on developing the Autobahn? Would we have worked with Hitler on his socialized medicine? Would we have worked with Hitler on any of his national, socialist ideas?" he asked.

"The answer is no. No. When you're committing genocide, no! She said 'we have to work together on climate,' because climate is the 'overriding issue.' The overriding issue? There is no way to describe this mindset. That, yes, they are killing an entire group of people because of their ethnicity or religion. They are systematically rounding them up, using them for slave labor, and killing them, using their organs and selling them on the open market. They are nothing more than cattle. For us to recognize it and do nothing about it is bad enough. But to say, 'we recognize it, but we have bigger things to talk to them about,' is a horror show."

Glenn went on to urge Americans to "stand up together in love, peace, and harmony," or risk watching our nation become the worst plague on human life yet.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:

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 fall of Lehman Brothers in 2008 marked the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history and economic collapse was felt throughout the world. But now China's own version of Lehman Brothers, Evergrande, is teetering closer and closer to that edge, too. On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck gave the latest update and predicted how it will affect Asian markets and what it could mean for America's economy.

Glenn explained why he believes a major collapse that is happening now in China will have a cascading effect into a "controlled collapse," a managed decline that will dramatically change America's economy and the way we all live.

"You will not recognize your lifestyle. Hear me," Glenn warned. "And that's not a right-left thing. That's a right-wrong thing. We're on the wrong track. I'm telling you now, there's new information and you are not going to recognize the American lifestyle. ... It could happen tomorrow. It could happen in five years from now, but it will happen. We are headed for a very different country. One where you don't have the rights that you have. And you certainly don't have the economic privileges that Americans are used to."

"The same thing that happened in 2008 is now happening in China," Glenn continued. "This time, it's going to take everything down. When it collapses, it will take everything down."

Watch the video below to hear Glenn break down the details:

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.

Justin Haskins, editorial director of the Heartland Institute, joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to expose a shocking conversation between two Great Reset proponents — Klaus Schwab, chairman of the World Economic Forum, and Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (Europe's equivalent to the Fed).

The way Schwab and Lagarde discuss the role central banks should play in establishing societal norms, determining your way of life, and defending against potential crisis is proof that the Great Reset is upon us, Justin explained. And the scariest part is that they're not even trying to hide it. The entire, unbelievable conversation has been published on the WEF website, which you can read here.

Glenn read an excerpt from the conversation:

Christine Lagarde: At the ECB, we have now wrapped up and concluded our strategy review, which was the first one in 17 years. And I was blessed to have an entire Governing Council unanimously agree that the fight against climate change should be one of the considerations that we take when we determine monetary policy. So at least the European Central Bank is of the view that climate change is an important component in order to decide on monetary policy. ...

Can we arrive at that trade-off between fighting climate change, preserving biodiversity and yet securing enough growth to respond to legitimate demands of the population? And my first answer, Klaus, to be firm, is that to have a way of life, we need life. And in the medium term, we do have major threats on the horizon that could cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people. So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. ...

So we have to think life, first. We have to think way of life, second. How can we come together to make sure that we secure the first priority, which is life, and also protect the way of life that people have? And make sure that the cost of it is not so high for some people, that they just cannot tolerate it. I think that the trade-off that we reach will probably require some redistribution, because it is clear that the most exposed people, the less privileged people are those that are going to need some help.

"Do you understand, America, what that means?" Glenn exclaimed. "You have elites, that you never elected, that are having these meetings ... deciding what is a legitimate need for you. And telling you that your needs are going to go away in your lifetime. You may not see a time where you get wants again. Just your needs are going to be addressed. Am I reading this wrong?"

"This is absolutely what is being said here," Justin agreed. "She's very clear that we need to make sure that way of life is second to life. We have to save all these people, hundreds of thousands of people are going to die from this supposedly existential threat of climate change. And their wants, and their desires, and their quality of living, all of that has to come second."

"This is a central bank saying this. This is not an elected official, who is accountable directly to the people. This is a central bank saying, we're going to print money. We're going to use monetary policy, to impose these ideas, to rework society in order to accomplish our goals," Justin added, addressing Lagarde's call for "some redistribution."

Will Great Reset elites — not elected by the U.S. — soon be dictating to the rest of the world? Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn and Justin break it down:

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.