Glenn Beck: SEIU vs. You




Watch


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

Have you heard about Green Week over at NBC? Al Gore is going to be on — it's great. They are asking everyone to "go green" and "watch TV."

In California, they are trying to ban big screen TVs. Hey, GE: Won't turning on all of our TVs destroy the Earth?

That's why we aren't going green, we are going purple.

See, a purple shirt is the only thing that helps make any sense out of the health care bill. Without the purple shirt, this bill would make you say, "Why in the world would we do that?"

The American public doesn't want government-run health care and, for the first time in history, we don't think it's the government's place to give it to us.

We're the young girl saying "no" and government is Roman Polanski: In the end, we are all going to be cowering in France.

Why would we do it? We certainly can't afford it. Our unfunded liabilities in the U.S. are $105 trillion — that's promises we've made, but don't have the money to cover. And we are adding to that? A few months ago we were in a crisis that "we may not be able to reverse":

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Then we spent almost a trillion dollars on a stimulus that promised to keep unemployment under eight percent — now it's 10.2 percent. How is America supposed to feel confident that this time politicians will get it right?

Well, I don't. And by a look at the polls, most of America doesn't either. Look at the track record:

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted future Medicare would cost about $12 billion. The actual number was $110 billion and last year it was well over $400 billion

They "estimated" $1 billion would last four months with "cash for clunkers." It was broke in one week.

Social Security will be bankrupt 30 years.

Obama has proposed at least $10 trillion in welfare spending, yet he tries to act like he's somehow being fiscally responsible. He uses the term "deficit neutral" a lot:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA, NOV. 9, 2009: Congress needs to know that when I say this has to be deficit neutral, I mean it.

OBAMA, JULY 29, 2009: I will not sign a health care bill that is not deficit neutral.

OBAMA, JULY 1, 2009: This can't add to our deficit. It's got to be deficit neutral.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

That's great. But how are you going to do that, exactly? Obama claims to remain "deficit neutral" by paying for this bill with "savings." I want to be fair to the president, so I've compiled a list of all the times government programs successfully "saved" money. Here they are:

I'm one of those old-fashioned people who do this crazy, wacky thing called "saving." Yes, if I want something I set money aside. And then I buy it. Whoa, that's radical isn't it?

Here's a question no politician will bother answering: If this bill doesn't kick in 'til 2013 (which is a convenient year, no? After the next presidential election? Hmm), why not just wait and see if we can save the money? And make the bill conditional on if we can actually get the savings before we fully commit? I know, more radical extremist talk!

Another question — again, I'm one of those hateful old-fashioned types, but when I hear $1 trillion, I'm thinking lap of luxury. I'm thinking Rolls Royce. But, by their own admission, this plan won't even cover everyone; as many as 30 million people will still have no insurance.

And we've all heard about the problems with others who have already tried similar programs:

• Doctor lotteries in Canada

• The 4,000 babies born in the hallways in Britain due to a shortage of delivery rooms

• Group doctors visits and long lines from Romney-Care in Massachusetts

It's the same story everywhere it's been tried. So, we take Rolls money when we already know we are going to get a Peugeot? It doesn't make sense.

Ah, but wait. I almost forgot: It's purple day. Let me summon the purple shirt. None of the stats add up, so why would we do this? Could it have something to do with special interests? No! It couldn't. The president himself said he was going to rid the capitol of those evil special interests:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BARACK OBAMA: We're going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren't driving the process and your voices aren't being drowned out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

How is that working out? Let's start with some of those special interests:

The AARP is strangely for this plan, even though a majority of seniors oppose it. It's pretty obvious that cutting $500 billion from Medicare probably won't help the seniors already on it. Maybe they want it because of the estimated 12 million seniors who will need to purchase expensive Medi-gap insurance that is offered through (wait for it) the AARP.

Attorneys aren't complaining about the plan; they are licking their chops. It'll open up a whole new area of litigation. Before, attorneys who sued health care insurance companies for denied medical care were only entitled to the cost of the service which was denied. Under this legislation, attorneys could sue those same insurance companies for pain and suffering, lost wages, wrongful death — which translates to "gobs of cash."

What about those fence sitters in Congress? Those last-minute "yes" votes? What convinced them? Here's a few:

Rep. Anh Cao — the lone GOP vote — said it was "promises of future support for New Orleans."

Rep. Dennis Cardoza was assured he'd get drought assistance for his state.

Michael Michaud in Maine was won over with "personal coaxing" from the president. Personal coaxing? My grandfather would have called them bribes.

They don't care about what the constituents want. Remember the polls? We don't want this. They're on the take and guess who they are taking from? You.

And the biggest winner in the health care sweepstakes is: the unions.

Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, a union of 2.2 million people, leads the White House visitors list with 22 visits. What do they talk about together?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

He doesn't address your concerns or my concerns. No, he consults with Andy Stern at least 22 times.

Stern represents 2.2 million people. There are 3 million who watch this show. Could you imagine if the president of the United States said the person he talks to most on the issues of the economy and national defense is "Glenn Beck of Fox News" and I was the most frequent visitor of the White House? No one would stand for it.

The president shouldn't be talking to anyone who leads a group who leads 1 million, 2 million or 10 million. He's here to lead the entire group. You know, justice for all.

The reason continue to push for this when you are saying no is because you aren't the ones they are listening to. Unless you are wearing a purple shirt.

I said this well over a year ago, maybe two, that the unions desperately need government health care because they are in trouble. They've promised too much: Huge benefit packages and massive retirement pensions have unions scrambling to unload the burden. And guess who is the lucky recipient of that burden under Obama's plan?

You.

How could he do that? It doesn't make sense. But remember, his "life work" is not about you:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I've spent my entire adult life working with SEIU. I'm not a newcomer to this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

All his life he's been doing the SEIU's work. Work for those 2.2 million people. So we know the president has a lot in common with Andy Stern. Let's see if you do: What are his goals?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDY STERN, PRESIDENT OF SEIU: Workers of the world unite, it's not just a slogan anymore it's a way we're going to have to do our work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Workers of the world unite. Hmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yes: That's the communist slogan. Good thing there hasn't been a recent rash of communist radicals running around in the White House. Because then I'd really be concerned. Let's for a moment give old Andy the benefit of the doubt, that he just went to the Anita Dunn school of comedy, what else does he believe?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STERN: The question is how is everyone going to share in the wealth? And I think that after we get through this health care situation and finally solve this problem of 223 years, you know, we are going to see a change in our labor laws.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

A 223 year mistake? First of all, it's 233 years. Which would be... America? Twenty-two visits. My work is their work. Let's paint the country purple. Purple? Why not red, white and blue? I'll show you why: SEIU just made a movie. The topic? How the SEIU got Obama elected. Here's the trailer:

(BEGIN 'LABOR DAY' VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Ordinary people can do extraordinary things so long as they are organized, so long as the are mobilized, so long as they are unionized.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would like to introduce to you the next president of the United States, Barack Obama.

OBAMA: Thank you, Cleveland.

(APPLAUSE)

Give it up for SEIU.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Whose interest is government acting on with this bill? They can't afford it. It doesn't cover everyone. Special interests are being paid off. It certainly doesn't seem to help you.

Let me give you a plan of action here, something positive you can do.

Six people in Congress are on the fence. They are up for re-election. If you live in their districts call and ask them: What have they been promised? What's in it for them? Remind them that you will be listening and watching. And if they come out for it, you'll work to campaign against them.

You see, right now, they only want one thing: To get re-elected. And they have more fear in the big purple monster than faith in we the people.

You speak without fear. Tell them no means no. But look out, the big purple monster doesn't take no for an answer.

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

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?

These days, when Americans decide to be outraged about something, we really go all out.

This week's outrage is, of course, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy toward illegal immigration along the southern border. Specifically, people are upset over the part of the policy that separates children from their parents when the parents get arrested.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

Lost in all the outrage is that the President is being proactive about border security and is simply enforcing the law. Yes, we need to figure out a less clumsy, more compassionate way of enforcing the law, but children are not being flung into dungeons and fed maggots as the media would have you believe.

But having calm, reasonable debates about these things isn't the way it's done anymore. You have to make strong, sweeping announcements so the world knows how righteous your indignation is.

That's why yesterday, the governors of Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut declared they are withholding or recalling their National Guard troops from the U.S.-Mexico border until this policy of separating children from their parents is rescinded.

Adding to the media stunt nature of this entire "crisis," it turns out this defiant announcement from these five governors is mostly symbolic. Because two months ago, when President Trump called for 4,000 additional National Guard troops to help patrol the border, large numbers of troops were not requested from those five states. In fact, no troops were requested at all from Rhode Island. But that didn't stop Rhode Island's Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo, from announcing she would refuse to send troops if she were asked. She called the family separation policy, "immoral, unjust and un-American."

There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

The governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York all used the word "inhumane" in their statements condemning the Trump administration policy. There's so much outrage, we're running short on adjectives.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, four of these five governors are running for re-election this year.

I've made my position clear — separating these children from their parents is a bad policy and we need to stop. We need to treat these immigrants with the kind of compassion we'd want for our own children. And I said the same thing in 2014 when no one cared about the border crisis.

If consistency could replace even just a sliver of the outrage in America, we would all be a lot better off.

I think we can all agree, both on the Left and the Right, that children who have been caught up in illegal immigration is an awful situation. But apparently what no one can agree on is when it matters to them. This past weekend, it suddenly — and even a little magically — began to matter to the Left. Seemingly out of nowhere, they all collectively realized this was a problem and all rushed to blame the Trump administration.

RELATED: These 3 things need to happen before we can fix our border problem

Here's Rachel Maddow yesterday:

I seem to remember getting mocked by the Left for showing emotion on TV, but I'll give her a pass here. This is an emotional situation. But this is what I can't give her a pass on: where the heck was this outrage and emotion back in 2014? Because the same situation going on today — that stuff Maddow and the rest of the Left have only just now woken up to — was going on back in July 2014! And it was arguably worse back then.

I practically begged and pleaded for people to wake up to what was going on. We had to shed light on how our immigration system was being manipulated by people breaking our laws, and they were using kids as pawns to get it done. But unlike the gusto the Left is using now to report this story, let's take a look at what Rachel Maddow thought was more important back in 2014.

On July 1, 2014, Maddow opened her show with a riveting monologue on how President Obama was hosting a World Cup viewing party. That's hard-hitting stuff right there.

On July 2, 2014, Maddow actually acknowledged kids were at the border, but she referenced Health and Human Services only briefly and completely rushed through what was actually happening to these kids. She made a vague statement about a "policy" stating where kids were being taken after their arrival. She also blamed Congress for not acting.

See any difference in reporting there from today? That "policy" she referenced has suddenly become Trump's "new" policy, and it isn't Congress's fault… it's all on the President.

She goes on throughout the week.

On July 7, 2014, her top story was something on the Koch brothers. Immigration was only briefly mentioned at the end of the show. This trend continued all the way through the week. I went to the border on July 19. Did she cover it? Nope. In fact, she didn't mention kids at the border for the rest of the month. NOT AT ALL.

Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not?

Make up your minds. Is this an important issue or not? Do you care about immigrant kids who have been caught in the middle of a broken immigration system or not? Do you even care to fix it, or is this what it looks like — just another phony, addicted-to-outrage political stunt?

UPDATE: Here's how this discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

Glenn gives Rachel Maddow the benefit of the doubt

Rachel Maddow broke down in tears live on her MSNBC show over border crisis.

Progressives think the Obamas are a gift to the world. But their gift is apparently more of the metaphorical kind. It doesn't extend to helpful, tangible things like saving taxpayers money. Illinois has approved $224 million to pay for street and transportation upgrades around the planned site of the Obama Presidential Center. The catch is that Illinois taxpayers will have to cover $200 million of that cost. For a presidential museum.

Eight years of multiplying the national debt wasn't enough for Barack Obama. Old fleecing habits die hard. What's another $200 million here and there, especially for something as important as an Obama tribute center?

RELATED: Want to cure millennials' financial woes? Reform the payroll tax.

That's all well and good except Illinois can't even fund its pension system. The state has a $137 billion funding shortfall. That means every person in Illinois owes $11,000 for pensions, and there is no plan to fix the mess. Unless Illinois progressives have discovered a new kind of math, this doesn't really add up. You can't fund pensions, but you're going to figure out a way to milk the public for another $200 million to help cover the cost of a library?

It's hard to imagine who in their right mind would think this will be money well spent. Well, except for maybe Chicago Mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, "The state's… investment in infrastructure improvements near the Obama Center on the South Side of Chicago is money well spent."

Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

The spending has already been signed into law, even though the Obama library has not received construction approval yet. Part of the holdup is that the proposed site is on public land in historic Jackson Park. That doesn't seem very progressive of the Obamas, but, you know, for certain presidents, you go above and beyond. It's just what you do. Some presidential overreach lasts longer than others.

Here's the thing about taxing the peasants so the king can build a fancy monument to himself – it's wrong. And completely unnecessary. The Obamas have the richest friends on the planet who could fund this project in their sleep. If the world simply must have a tricked-out Obama museum, then let private citizens take out their wallets voluntarily.

As the Mercury Museum proved this weekend, it is possible to build an exhibit with amazing artifacts that attracts a ton of visitors – and it cost taxpayers approximately zero dollars.