Glenn Beck: The truth on Obamacare




 


Robert Reich: What An Honest President Would Say About Health Reform

GLENN: There's something else that I want to play, and Pat, will you set this up for me?

PAT: This is

GLENN: But as Yoda?

PAT: Robert Reich this is, hmmm? Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So this is Robert Reich.

PAT: Robert Reich, who was Bill Clinton's labor secretary.

GLENN: Now, is it Robert Reich III, or is it Robert Third Reich?

PAT: Robert Third Reich. Robert is a huge Barack Obama supporter, proponent, advocate.

STU: Economic advisor as well.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

PAT: I was getting to that.

STU: Oh, okay.

PAT: Yeah, he's on both teams. He was officially with the Clinton administration, but he also served with Barack Obama's economic advisory.

STU: He's a heavy weight.

PAT: He is. And he's been advised and he was the one who said that white people shouldn't get all the stimulus jobs, white construction workers.

STU: I'm so glad

GLENN: I love him.

PAT: So glad. Well, here he is talking. This is Robert Reich talking about the way healthcare should be.

GLENN: Should be.

PAT: This was like a year ago, a year and a half ago.

GLENN: Now, this is wait a minute. Hang on. He said this is the way it should be, and this is the speech that if we were

PAT: That a presidential candidate should make, if he really had the guts. If he didn't care about winning or losing, this is the way he would set up the healthcare debate.

GLENN: Okay. Because he says this is the truth. So now here he is saying this is what the truth is, and if there was anybody that had the cojones to tell you the truth, this would be the speech that that person would give.

REICH: I will actually give you a speech made up entirely almost at the spur of the moment of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored.

GLENN: We're in a republic!

REICH: In terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality.

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop, stop. I can't take it.

PAT: That education thing, it just shows again, I am above you. I'm educated. That's why I

GLENN: And you can't separate myth from reality.

PAT: You're not educated. This, "I went, I'm summa cum laude from Dartmouth and I'm a former Harvard professor."

GLENN: I can't take these people, I can't take the arrogance of them.

PAT: It's unbelievable, unbelievable.

GLENN: So you go ahead. Stupid people, just try really hard to he may use some big words here. Try to understand.

REICH: In terms of what candidates would tell them: Thank you so much for coming this afternoon.

GLENN: This is the speech.

REICH: I'm so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on healthcare. Look, we are we have the only healthcare system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. That's true. And what I'm going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people, but that means

GLENN: Stop. I'm confused. Amenable, does that mean that they are amoebas, that he's going to release amoebas? I don't even know what amoebas are but they sound delicious.

PAT: He wants amoebas to be treated because right now we're apparently not treating amoebas.

GLENN: He was using big words. I don't know if we've lost the audience. We'll translate later.

REICH: You, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people, you are going to have to pay more.

GLENN: Whoa. Listen to this. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Listen to this. This audience is so ready for saying, "Yes, yes, the young people should pay more. They should pay more, yes."

PAT: Wait until you see what else they clap for.

REICH: And by the way, we are going to have to, if you are very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die.

PAT: Again, again Barack Obama's economic advisor, again this is what Sarah Palin alluded to.

GLENN: Death panels.

PAT: This is what we've talked about, this is what we warned you with, withhold Ren and Sunstein.

GLENN: I'm telling you

PAT: These guys all feel this way.

GLENN: Holdren and Sunstein are extraordinarily dangerous, extraordinarily dangerous. Between healthcare and the environment, those two men, those two men, in the wrong conditions, will be responsible for many, many deaths. Many deaths. You know, I because here's what I want. Here's what I want. I would like a member of the press to ask Cass Sunstein and Holdren the one question: You both talked about putting sterilants in drinking water, or something like that. I mean, you both were on this whole kick of

PAT: Forced abortions, population control, blah, blah blah.

GLENN: All of this stuff, you're all for that stuff. You now say that was discredited and you no longer believe those things. But that's because the population explosion turned out to be wrong. Is there any other explosion of anything? Is there global warming or is there too expensive healthcare or social programs that would make you say these things are reasonable? Because I haven't heard you discredit your solutions. I have heard you say that the problem was discredited, right, Stu?

STU: I mean, they certainly walked away from those old statements and then

GLENN: You don't say I'm going to put I think we should put sterilants in drinking waters; I think we should have forced sterilization; I think we should have forced abortions. You don't say those things and not know the moment you changed your mind and went, "Whoa, that was crazy."

STU: Right.

GLENN: You have that

PAT: And that moment should come before you join an administration.

GLENN: An administration.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: It can't be the excuse.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: "Oh, I'm different now."

GLENN: And what they say, they don't even say that.

PAT: No, they don't.

GLENN: "Look, that was a different time. The population explosion thing, that was real. That's been discredited. And then everything else they've said, they said that was just in an academic setting." So let me ask you this: If Rush Limbaugh would have said about McNabb, if he would have said it while on the campus of Harvard while he was teaching, would it have been acceptable?

STU: Ask Larry Summers who's sitting in the administration.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. There's something wrong, something big time wrong.

Now, so what we have here is Robert Third Reich say that he is going to you think that's bad?

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Robert Reich say I mean, he's saying we're to the going to what he just said

PAT: He's saying you need to die! If you're old!

GLENN: We're going to have death panels!

PAT: Sorry, if you're old, you die; we don't treat you.

STU: Wait a minute. There's an important clarification there. He did not say anything about death panels. He was just making the decision.

PAT: You're right.

STU: There's no panel of information. You're just dead.

PAT: Because he's the presidential candidate; we're going to let you die.

GLENN: Now, he just said if you're old, you're too expensive, we're not going to spend that money and we're going to let you die. Now, as outrageous as that is, here is what's more outrageous. Listen to the reaction of the crowd. He just said we're going to let you die because it's too expensive.

(Applause)

PAT: Yeah!

STU: Yeah, death, woo hoo! Old people dead, woo hoo hoo! Yeah, yeah! Woo hoo!

GLENN: Okay, okay, okay, okay. Who reacts that way? Who happen reacts that way?

STU: I can't

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Why? Why would you

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Maybe you laugh because you think he's being blunt, but you certainly don't clap. There's nothing to clap about. He just said he was going to kill all the old people! They weren't worth the

GLENN: But wait, wait. You can say this is an academic example: He's just using an academic, he's just giving a speech. But he's giving the speech that he said should be given in the perfect republic I'm sorry, the perfect democracy!

STU: And he's being honest! It's true! That's what these policies bring!

GLENN: This is why I said last hour, you must root yourself in the truth. You must know what you believe. You must know who you trust. And then you don't have to do anything! You just have to repeat the facts. You just have to show these things to people. Because when they see these things, these people destroy themselves. In their arrogance they built a tower to reach the sky. In their arrogance, they are so overeducated, so far above you and me and us puny little ants that they could crush with their feet. They don't think that it matters that you know. Oh, they're so sadly mistaken. So sadly mistaken. Know which side you're on. Are you the side that says, "Oh, my gosh!" Or are you on the side that makes the Robert Reich statement or just the one on the side that is clapping for the, "Yeah, let's kill old people"? Or, are you the person and I think this is the worst one. Are you the person that is sitting there in the room and says, "Wow, that doesn't sound... good. I'll just... I'll just nevermind. It doesn't matter." Do not be that person. Do not be that person.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.