Glenn interviews Palin TONIGHT

Glenn: Stu, you did fun with numbers last night. Give me fun with numbers last night. Will you?

Stu: This is going through some of the ratings that television ‑‑ I think there's some ‑‑

Pat: He sounds like a parrot.

Stu: This is what we discovered. This is Friday's ratings of the Glenn Beck program. Your ratings on Friday equaled the combined audience of MSNBC from Hard Ball, the Ed Show, Hard Ball hour 2, Olbermann and Maddow, plus 14,000 viewers.

Pat: Wow. Wow.

Glenn: I love these people.

Pat: Wow.

Glenn: Bill O'Reilly said last night, I saw Sarah Palin on and they were making fun of Sarah Palin on CNN and Paul Begala was, like, Oh, everybody thinks she's crazy, and Bill O'Reilly said, You watch. The numbers tonight ‑‑ this was on the show last night. You watch the numbers tonight with you on it will be huge, will be huge, and we nightly beat CNN 5 to 1. I think ‑‑ I think we meet them because the competition is less fierce at 5:00. I think we meet CNN and all these people by 6 to 1.

Stu: Yeah. Well, to illustrate another way, your audience on January 11th, which was Monday, Monday's audience, was the equivalent of Chris Matthews' audience for all of 2010 plus 137,000 viewers.

Pat: In the entire year.

Glenn: That's unbelievable.

Stu: Isn't it, like ‑‑ isn't it time to just shut it down?

Pat: Yeah, it is.

Glenn: No, no.

Stu: Play some slap shot commercials?

Glenn: No. It is time to say maybe we are out of step with the American people.

Stu: No. Sarah Palin's dumb and we have four people watching us. That's a business plan. Congratulations, MSNBC.

Pat: He doesn't feel that way about you.

Glenn: He doesn't?

Pat: No.

Matthews: I listen to you all the time. I say you're about 30 years older than you are. You're amazingly smart for such a young guy, anyway. Thank you.

Stu: I remember that.

Glenn: That was, like, one of the first times I was on television.

Stu: Yeah.

Glenn: And we were surprised because he said he listened.

Pat: All the time.

Glenn: Yeah.

Stu: You listen to that ‑‑

Glenn: This is before he went to the total dark side.

Stu: You literally listen to that guy in the interview that ‑‑ this is back, I think, 2003. It was when Real America came out. Listen to that guy and listen to the guy on television today

Pat: Totally different guy. I interviewed him about that time. I don't know if ‑‑ it was 2003 or something. He was moderate. You know ‑‑

Glenn: Yeah, he was.

Pat: I mean, he wasn't wildly conservative, but he wasn't this.

Glenn: Do you know what? No, wasn't. No, he wasn't, because if you play ‑‑ do you have the audio of what he said on December 23rd about our good friend Saul Alinsky?

Pat: Oh, yeah, I do.

Glenn: Hang on just a second. How could you be moderate? I mean, this is what people don't understand. When I say that Barack Obama is going to hit a bad, really bad spell and he's going to be pushed up against the wall, which he's never been done, it's never happened to him yet, he's going to be pushed up against the wall and what's going to happen? He's going to ‑‑ he's going to tear off the mask. I contend that all of these people have been wearing a mask. In the moderate day, you don't just change overnight. What happened was he decided, do you know what? I can really be who I am over here.

Stu: Maybe.

Pat: When you hear this ‑‑

Glenn: Is this moderate? Listen to this.

Matthews: To teach back to whatever our heroes from the past, from the Sixties, Saul Alinsky once said that even though both sides have flaws in their arguments and you can always find something nuanced about your own side you don't like, it's never perfect, you have to act in the end like there's simple black and white clarity between your side and the other side or you don't get anything done. I always try to remind myself of Saul Alinsky when I get confused.

Pat: Who doesn't?

Stu: Unbelievable.

Glenn: These people.

Stu: Or Mau, one of the people I go to first.

Pat: Yeah.

Glenn: These people have been lying to us for a very long time.

Stu: In that interview, though, with you, he praises Rush Limbaugh. I mean, he defends Rush Limbaugh in that interview and he praises you. At the time, you know, you were, much less known and weren't the most evil person in the universe at the time. So, I could understand him being differential to you.

Glenn: No, no. He said he listens to me all the time. Play that clip again because I just love this, because it goes against everything that he said. He listened to me all the time.

Matthews: I listen to you all the time. I think you're about 30 years older than you are. You're amazingly smart for such a young guy, anyway.

Stu: Amazingly to me.

Glenn: What happened to me? Did I get hit about a stupid stick or did I just start to become influential and now they have to destroy me?

Stu: I don't know. It seems like ‑‑

Glenn: Have I been in a car accident and I had a boo‑boo on my head all the sudden?

Stu: I don't think the change is with you. I think you're right, obviously, when you say you're going back to Saul Lynn ski. You know, everyone knows the guy was at least to some degree liberal and Democrat and everything else, but there's a significant personality change in that dude

Pat: There is.

Stu: He is now just literally insane on the air. I mean, he's just screaming about things all the time. He's changed.

Glenn: Have you noticed MSNBC, they have ‑‑ they think ‑‑ they think they know why, for instance, I'm successful. Have you seen this ‑‑ who's this Dillon guy?

Pat: Dillon Radigan.

Glenn: Oh, my God. I've seen him in an Elvis suit. I've seen him in a clown outfit.

Stu: Who is he? He's on what?

Glenn: He's on MSNBC. Nobody watches.

Stu: I know that.

Glenn: I've never seen anything like that and it's ‑‑

Stu: He's wearing clown suits?

Pat: Yeah. They think that the props are what is attracting people to you and so they've got this guy on doing this ‑‑ what they consider to be ‑‑ oh, this is the same kind of thing Beck is doing. This will be huge.

Glenn: They have no idea. It's the message. It's the message. You know, I ‑‑ no, I'm not going to ‑‑ I'll tell you ‑‑ I will tell you when I'm finished with this. Do you know what? I hate this. We used to have a radio show where it was just, like, you know, all of our friends hanging out and it was just people hanging out and, you know, people we could talk to ‑‑ you know, we could share and we were always flying urn the radar, which was always so nice. Now we have people ‑‑ I mean, I just met with some people just last week that ‑‑ what they're ‑‑ their job is, in the media, their job is to watch and listen to the show. That's what they get paid to do. And they do it ‑‑ not necessarily these people, but others do it to destroy and so I can't necessarily share a lot of things that I would like to share with you in the uptake. I have to tell you after it's been done, but I'm working on something now that I think we have a chance of actually doing and breaking a wall down, just breaking a wall down. I really, truly believe the paradigm is about to change and I'm going to ‑‑ I'm trolling right now for people ) people who think differently than I do, politically they understand that the paradigm is about to change. I want to see if ‑‑ I want to see who's out there and what are they willing to explore.

The themes of healing and redemption appear throughout the Bible.

Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. — 1 Corinthians 15:43
It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. — Mark 2:17.

So, for many Christians, it's no surprise to hear that people of faith live longer lives.

Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise. — Jeremiah 17:14.

But it is certainly lovely to hear, and a recent study by a doctoral student at Ohio State University is just one more example of empirical evidence confirming the healing benefits of faith and religious belief.

RELATED: MEDIA BIGOTRY: The New Yorker hates on Chick-fil-A over 'pervasive Christian traditionalism'

Moreover, the study finds that religious belief can lengthen a person's life.

A joyful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. — Proverbs 17:22
Lord, your discipline is good, for it leads to life and health. You restore my health and allow me to live! — Isaiah 38:16

The study analyzed over 1,000 obituaries nationwide and found that people of faith lived longer than people who were not religious. Laura Wallace, lead author of the study, noted that "religious affiliation had nearly as strong an effect on longevity as gender does, which is a matter of years of life."

The study notes that, "people whose obits mentioned a religious affiliation lived an average of 5.64 years longer than those whose obits did not, which shrunk to 3.82 years after gender and marital status were considered."

And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction. — Matthew 10:1

"The researchers found that part of the reason for the boost in longevity came from the fact that many religiously affiliated people also volunteered and belonged to social organizations, which previous research has linked to living longer. The study provides persuasive evidence that there is a relationship between religious participation and how long a person lives," said Baldwin Way, co-author of the study and associate professor of psychology at Ohio State.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

In addition, the study showed how the effects of religion on longevity might depend in part on the personality and average religiosity of the cities where people live, Way said.

Prayer is good medicine, and faith is a good protector.

And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. — Luke 5:17
Heal the sick in it and say to them, The kingdom of God has come near to you. — Luke 10:9.

In early June, the Social Security and Medicare trustees released their annual report on the fiscal health of these programs, and the situation looks dire. Medicare is scheduled to run out of money in 2026 (three years sooner than anticipated), while Social Security is expected to run out in 2034. The rising national debt is only one of the well-known financial struggles the millennial generation faces. The burdens of student loan debt, high housing prices (thanks to zoning restrictions), stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of healthcare and lingering aftershocks of the Great Recession are among the biggest sources of economic anxiety millennials feel.

Progressive politicians have been very successful at courting the youth vote, partly because they actually promote policy ideas that address many of these concerns. As unrealistic or counterproductive as Senator Bernie Sanders' proposals for single-payer health care or a $15 an hour minimum wage might be, they feel in theory like they would provide the economic stability and prosperity millennials want.

RELATED: Time to reverse course: America is being corrupted by its own power

Republicans, on the other hand, have struggled to craft a message to address these concerns. Fiscal conservatives recognize, correctly, that the burden of the $20 trillion national debt and over $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities will fall on millennials. Some conservatives have even written books about that fact. But the need to reform entitlements hasn't exactly caught millennials' attention. Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, in her book The Selfie Vote, notes that millennials generally view protecting the safety net as more important than reducing the deficit.

Clearly, Republicans have a problem. They need to craft solutions that address the millennial generation's struggles, but they can't seem to sell entitlement reform, their biggest policy preference that addresses those problems. The Republican approach to wooing millennials on policy is failing because talking about stopping the debt from reaching an unsustainable level is long-term and abstract, and offers few immediate tangible benefits. A new approach to both pave the way for entitlement reform and give millennials an immediate financial boost is to first reform not entitlement spending, but the payroll tax: specifically, by partially (or wholly) replacing it with a value-added tax.

Under the current Social Security model, workers pay for the benefits of current retirees through the payroll tax. This system creates the illusion of a pension program, in which what you put in is what you get out, but in reality Social Security is a universal safety net program for the elderly paid for by taxes. The payroll tax falls on workers and is a tax on labor, while the value-added tax (VAT) is a tax on consumption imposed at every part of the production process. Assuming that this policy change is revenue-neutral, switching to a VAT will shift the responsibility for funding Social Security and Medicare away from workers, disproportionately poorer and younger, and onto everyone participating in the economy as a whole. Furthermore, uncoupling Social Security funding from payroll taxes would pave the way for fiscal reforms to transform the program from a universal benefit program to one geared specifically to eliminating old-age poverty, such as means-testing benefits for high-income beneficiaries, indexing benefits to prices rather than wages or changing the retirement age.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences.

Switching from the payroll tax to the VAT would address both conservative and liberal tax policy preferences. As the Tax Policy Center notes, the change would actually make the tax system more progressive. The current payroll tax is regressive, meaning that people with lower incomes tend to pay a higher effective tax rate than people with higher incomes. On the other hand, the value-added tax is much closer to proportional than the payroll tax, meaning that each income group pays closer to the same effective tax rate.

For Republicans, such a change would fit conservative economic ideas about the long-run causes of economic growth. A value-added tax has a much broader base than the payroll tax, and therefore would allow for much lower marginal tax rates, and lower marginal tax rates mean smaller disincentives to economic activity. According to the Tax Foundation's analysis of a value-added tax, the VAT would be a more economically efficient revenue source than most other taxes currently in the tax code.

Not only would replacing part or all of the payroll tax provide an immediate benefit to millennial taxpayers, it would also open the door for the much-needed entitlement reforms that have been so politically elusive. Furthermore, it would make the tax code both more pro-growth and less regressive. In order to even begin to address the entitlement crisis, win millennial support and stimulate the economy in a fiscally responsible manner, Republicans must propose moving from the payroll tax to the VAT.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate. His writing has appeared in Townhall and The Federalist. He is a federal policy intern at the Tax Foundation. Opinions expressed here are his only and not the views of the Tax Foundation. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Glenn was joined by Alanna Sarabia from "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios on Thursday for an exclusive look at Mercury Museum's new "Rights & Responsibilities" exhibit. Open through Father's Day, the temporary museum features artifacts from pop culture, America's founding, World Ward II and more, focusing on the rights and responsibilities America's citizens.

Get tickets and more information here.

Watch as Glenn gives a sneak peek at some of the unique artifacts on display below.

History at the Mercury Museum

Alanna Sarabia interviews Glenn Beck for "Good Morning Texas" at Mercury Studios.

Several months ago, at the Miss Universe competition, two women took a selfie, then posted it on Instagram. The caption read, "Peace and love." As a result of that selfie, both women faced death threats, and one of the women, along with her entire family, had to flee her home country. The occasion was the 2017 Miss Universe competition, and the women were Miss Iraq and Miss Israel. Miss Iraq is no longer welcome in her own country. The government threatened to strip her of her crown. Of course, she was also badgered for wearing a bikini during the competition.

RELATED: Media's anti-Israel, pro-Islam bias sweeps THIS fact under the rug

In an interview, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, said:

When I posted the picture I didn't think for a second there would be blowback. I woke up to calls from my family and the Miss Iraq Organization going insane. The death threats I got online were so scary. The director of the Miss Iraq Organization called me and said they're getting heat from the ministry. He said I have to take the picture down or they will strip me of my title.

Yesterday, Miss Iraq, Sarah Idan, posted another selfie with Miss Israel, during a visit to Jerusalem.

In an interview, she said that:

I don't think Iraq and Israel are enemies; I think maybe the governments are enemies with each other. There's a lot of Iraqi people that don't have a problem with Israelis.

This is, of course, quite an understatement: Iraq, home to roughly 15,000 Palestinians, refuses to acknowledge Israel as a legitimate country, as it is technically at war with Israel. The adages says that a picture is worth a thousand words. What are we to do when many of those words are hateful or deadly? And how can we find the goodness in such bad situations?