Glenn Beck: I love you, you love me...



Glenn Beck's American Revival


Glenn Beck's American Revival is a daylong event where you can find information, inspiration, and the preparation to help turn this country around...


 - Tickets now available!


GLENN: Van Jones was given an award from the NAACP and in it, in their acceptance speech at the very end he gave a shout out to me. Do you have the whole ending of

PAT: Uh huh. Of the speech?

GLENN: Here's Van Jones speaking about me at the end of his acceptance speech at the NAACP.

VAN JONES: The last thing I want to say is this: To my fellow countryman, Mr. Glenn Beck, I see you and I love you, brother. I love you, and you cannot do anything about it. I love you, and you cannot do anything about it. Let's be one country. Let's be one country. Let's get the job done. Thank you.

GLENN: Okay. Van Jones, you love me, I love you, we're not on an episode of Barney. I appreciate the fact that you love me and as my eternal brother, I love you as well. Now, it's never been a personal thing and I don't know why you are wanting to make it a personal issue, but it's not a personal thing. Never has been. I was somebody who didn't want you fired.

Everybody thinks, everybody thinks it's great that I, quote, got you fired. I didn't get you fired. The well, everyone would claim that you just left because you had other things to do. Nobody wanted at the time to claim that you left in shame or anything else. You were just going elsewhere, weren't going to be a part of it. I said at the time that was a huge mistake because it's about dialogue. And I know you love to have dialogue. I know you love to talk about the things that you believe in. And that's why I'm glad that you're back in the spotlight because I do want to talk about one country. The question is which country do we want? The country that you're looking for is very different than the country I understand. It's a country that is very different than the country that most people understand. You, sir, are a self avowed communist. You are somebody that wants to fundamentally transform America, and you're doing it through the guise of green jobs. Now, you can talk about love all you want, and I can love you right back, and I see you, Van Jones. I see you. And I love you, too. But the job that you're doing is in the cover of darkness. Mine is wide open. You know my agenda. I say it every day. I say it loudly and clearly, and I get an awful lot of heat for it. I don't get awards for what I say. You do. I don't get teaching jobs at universities. You do. So please don't try to play the victim here. You cover up what you say; I do not. One of us has the courage of our convictions. The other may have courage of their convictions but for some reason is cloaking all of those convictions. Now, I personally think it's because the people you're surrounded by, the progressives, have convinced you that their way is the best way of getting it done. You and Bill Ayers and Jeff Jones, all the radicals from the Sixties and the new radicals like you, the ones that are revolutionary, communist revolutionaries, the people that were in STORM, the people that want to overthrow the government. You've been convinced that the president and his advisors are just like you. And maybe it's because of my theory that they knew who you were before you got into anywhere near the president. Before you took your green jobs czardom. That was my theory... until this weekend.

This weekend Van Jones was on CNN and Van Jones was asked the question: Did they know, did the president know who you were before you arrived?

VAN JONES: I was fully candid, I mean, about my past, about the ideas that I have explored. I was a midlevel White House staffer. I reported to a Senate confirmed nominee. Midlevel White House staffers go through a vetting process, a process that's very, very rigorous. But I wasn't a cabinet secretary. I was a worker in the White House. Some people decided to give me this crazy title of green jobs czar in the media. I don't know if you remember this. I came right out and said I'm not the green jobs czar. I'm the green jobs handyman.

GLENN: Mmm hmmm. So they knew exactly who he was. Well, I'm sorry. If I have somebody who is a Marxist revolutionary who's standing up and saying that, you know, Mumia Abu Jamal was right for blowing the head off Danny Faulkner, a cop, I don't think I have him even emptying the garbage in the White House. If I have somebody who appears to be, although we can't ever trace anything down because people just don't seem to have the courage of their convictions, they just don't want to say these things out loud. But we're pretty sure that Van Jones was a member of STORM, which was a radical communist revolutionary front. We're pretty sure he wrote the book on STORM, but we can't confirm it. It's like the Invisible Committee, the communists that are writing books over in Europe. They tend to stay undercover. Why? Because that way they can hold their powerful positions and remain unseen and unknown. But with the resources of the White House, you'd think that they would be able to find all the things out that we have found out about Van Jones and it would give you pause. Now, did you notice that he said they knew everything and all of my positions that I have explored. No one will ask him if he is still a communist. No one will ask him if he has rejected communism and rejected Marxism, if he now believes in the free market system. Because he has said in the past that the free market system doesn't work. His joke was, "How's that capitalism working for ya, huh? How's that capitalism workin' for ya?" But then as the green jobs I'm sorry. Because it wasn't the

VOICE: Ho, ho, ho, green jobs czar.

GLENN: We had to correct it. It was...

VOICE: Ho, ho, ho, special advisor for green jobs at the White House council on environmental quality.

GLENN: Okay, that's what he was. So as he's the green jobs special advisor to the... whatever, he says we're going to go away from this capitalism thing. I don't want to quote him and get him wrong. So I'll let him actually say the words himself.

VAN JONES: One of the things that has happened I think too often to progressives is that we don't understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals. Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, okay, now we want reparations for slavery, we want redistribution of all wealth and we will to legalize mixed marriages, if that had been there, if they had come out with a maximum program the very next day, they would have been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum program: You know, we just want to integrate these buses. The students came up with a very minimum program: We just want to sit at the lunch counter. But inside that man demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954 to 1968, you know, complete revolution was on the table for this country and I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we're saying that we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco capitalism where, you know, at least we're not, you know, fast tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond existence of exploitation and oppression altogether, but that's a process.

GLENN: Okay. So there is the extreme goal. So the question is to the president of the United States, again, the same question: I have no problem with Van Jones, never have had any problems with Van Jones. I love you. Let's send Valentine's cards to each other. My issue, my problem is not with Van Jones. I know who Van Jones is. Case closed. Again, the dialogue needs to happen with the president of the United States.

Play the CNN cut again. Did the White House know who you were?

PAT: Got to go back to it.

GLENN: Oh, jeez. What kind of audio vault do you have?

PAT: One where you have to switch back and forth.

VAN JONES: I was fully candid about my past, about the ideas that I have explored.

GLENN: Stop. He was fully candid. So there are no more questions for Van Jones. The question remains again at the White House. Now it was speculation on my part. I said, how is it that we can find these things out but the White House cannot? I speculated based on Valerie Jarrett that she knew because she introduced him and she said we've been following him since his days in Oakland, California. That's when he was a radical! She spoke of him in high praise and lofty tones when she talked about his time in Oakland, California. So I was pretty sure but now we have no speculation. Now we have verification. So we're done with Van Jones. Because now we have verification the White House knew. They knew exactly who he was. So the question now needs to be asked of the president of the United States: You knew he was a radical, you knew that he was a Marxist, you knew that he was an avowed communist. You knew he was a man who called for revolution. You knew that he was a man who called for these things and then in his own words found the green movement and knew that that was the way to accomplish his communist goals. You knew that he was standing up for a cop killer. Mumia Abu Jamal who killed a cop at point blank range by shooting them in the head. Danny Faulkner is his name. You knew these things, Mr. President. According to your ally and your friend and one of the most important people in American history, a national treasure according to the NAACP. You knew these things. Is that who you are? Do you agree with those things? You won't talk to tea partygoers. You dismiss them as kooks and crackpots and they have nothing to say to you. But people who are avowed communists, back cop killers, call for revolution, say that the green job program is a cloak for a real radical end? What is your radical end, Mr. President? We know now what Van Jones' radical end is. What is yours? Do not be distracted by Van Jones. This is not the target, nor has it ever been the target of inquiry. The target of inquiry is President Obama. Period.

 

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?