Glenn Beck: Your Rights Are Slipping Away

I've got a question for you: How much do you really value your freedom of speech?

Oh, Glenn! Will you stop with your fear mongering? Free speech will never go away. America practically invented free speech!

If you don't think it can happen here, well, you just don't know history.

Woodrow Wilson imprisoned thousands of Americans for speaking out against the United States involvement in World War I. He also dictated the news coverage. And, when his policies weren't popular, he dispatched goon squads — kind of the SEIU of their day.

So don't tell me it can't happen; it already has.

Here's the next question: How far do you let things go before you — or better yet, your neighbor who doesn't agree with you — gets up off the couch and says, "I don't agree with him, but he has a right to say it!"

Florida urologist Jack Cassell reached his tipping point when Obamacare passed. He posted a sign on the door at his office that read: "If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your health care begin right now. Not in four years."

For expressing — as permitted under the First Amendment — his frustration with a bill that he truly believes will destroy the health care system and in turn harm the quality of care his patients receive, Dr. Cassell has got a congressman slapping complaints against him with the Department of Health.

Alan Grayson is filing the complaint — he's the moron who said that all Republicans want sick people to die:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALAN GRAYSON, D-FL.: The Republican health care plan is this: die quickly! That's right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Grayson has also suggested that Cassell is — you guessed it — a racist for turning away patients who supported Obama. Listen to this stellar logic:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRAYSON: What he is doing is no different from saying I will not treat a black person, I will not treat a Catholic.

Where he lives in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans. So by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in this community.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

The sign couldn't possibly have anything to do — nothing whatsoever — with the government taking the first step towards a single-payer system; a system that will leave Canadians everywhere weeping because they'll no longer be able to flee to America for health care? No, this doctor must be a racist. I bet he even wears a white coat. Elementary, my dear Grayson.

Of course, no one is bothering to look at the actual facts in the case. Cassell isn't actually turning anybody away. He's not screening by political views. Here's what he said: "I'm not turning anybody away, that would be unethical. But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it."

All he's doing is making a political statement. The one person the newspapers found who is upset about it says she "felt like" she wouldn't be treated. Not she "wasn't treated" or was "denied treatment." She just "felt" that way.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have watched a lot of "Perry Mason" and I don't think this argument would hold up in court. Maybe I missed the episode where Paul gave a wink so Perry could make the guy say, "I didn't do it, but I felt like I was going to." You either did or you didn't.

This doctor is standing up against something he feels will destroy his business; standing up for what he thinks is right; standing up for what he thinks is best for his patients. And Congress finds this appalling and wants this guy's license stripped away.

Isn't this the quintessential reason freedom of speech exists: To allow people to speak up against government without fear of things like losing their business?

Isn't this why the Founders were fleeing England? Yes and no. It became about political speech, but originally it was about religious speech. Being able to disagree, religiously, with what the king thought. I have news for you: You're about to lose both political and religious free speech. Do you really think the Founders made the First Amendment so porn stars could express themselves?

I wonder how the left would enjoy this new anti-free speech government under different control? Say Ronald Reagan comes back to life and becomes president in 2012. The speaker of the house is New Gingrich. Karl Rove is chief of staff. Jesus is Senate majority leader. Dick Cheney is special adviser on evil-related activities. Donald Rumsfeld is press secretary.

Now how do you like the system you've created? Where the right to disagree with the president or his policies is gone and speaking out will result in losing your business or your license or at the very least being publicly attacked? How do you like it now, when the evil Karl Rove is in power? Suddenly it doesn't sound so utopian, does it? That's why freedom of speech — whether you agree or disagree with the president — is of paramount importance.

Who is this administration building into the enemies that have to be silenced? Who in the media is making a difference today? Who is actually challenging the president and asking him something other than who he picked to win in his NCAA bracket? Let's see — there's a few:

• Fox News

Brett Baier is practically the only journalist to actually challenge the president. Is he really the only reporter in America who could come up with tough questions for the president? Seems like it. Is this the only network that has noticed the government's sudden proclivity for taking over entire industries — like the student loan industry — so they can "cut out the middleman" who was taking in evil profits? Seems like it.

But this administration responds to Fox News by saying we are not really a news organization and opinion shows like mine are in trouble with the president by name — listen to what he says here:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think that when you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck —

HARRY SMITH, CBS NEWS: It's beyond that.

OBAMA: It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome.

But, you know, keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Vitriol? Since when is saying "you're a socialist; look at your policies" hateful? That sounds like political speech. I know, look at this "hate speech" from Newsweek. That's not derogatory; it's an idea.

Chris Matthews didn't go after the word "socialist." His problem is that the word "regime" is being used to describe Obama and that he "never heard" that kind of language when Bush was president.

Really? The New York Times referred to the "Bush regime" 16 times; The Washington Post referred to the "Bush regime" 24 times; MSNBC did it 8 times and Chris Matthews himself, did it once.

• Talk radio

Talk radio is giving a voice to many Americans who feel like government isn't listening to them. Several senators have talked about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine. And then the president comes out and says this last week about being called a socialist:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: That's not the vast majority of Americans. The truth is some of these comments when you actually ask, well this is based on what? This notion that Obama's a socialist, nobody can really give you a good answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I can, Mr. President. In fact, I want to present you with a really good answer, but it's going to be a full hour and we have to pick and choose.

• The Tea Parties

They've been mocked and attacked from the beginning; called "tea baggers" and racists; they've been called violent and extreme — despite any actual evidence.

The latest attack was when Nancy Pelosi and then members of the Black Caucus unnecessarily strolled directly through the "Kill the Bill" rally on March 20: They claimed the N-word was shouted 15 times and congressmen were spat on. Despite cameras rolling all over the place — both media and individual — there is zero proof that even one racial word was said and there is also no proof or evidence of any spitting. But it sure makes one great story, doesn't it? Andrew Breitbart has offered to donate $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone with actual evidence comes forward. So far there have been no takers.

• The Drudge Report

Last month, in the heat of the health care battle, the administration tried to ban staffers from viewing DrudgeReport.com because of unspecified "virus activity" associated with the site. I go to Drudge every day — never had a computer problem. The "warning" turned out to have "no factual basis."

And now it's the FCC with net neutrality. Coming up next I'm going to show you how the government is going after free speech on the Internet. The radical left lobbying group Free Press has the ear of the president and you'll be quite amazed with their grassroots campaign to control the Internet. And you'll never guess who they are using as their poster boy of who should be silenced.

By the way, I've noticed an interesting trend this week on all of these "grassroots" boycotts. Let's see: First there was the one from Obama's former green jobs czar Van Jones and his front group. Then there was Obama's spiritual adviser Jim Wallis. Oh and SEIU, Andy Stern's union and Obama's best union buddy — the most frequent visitor to the White House.

So three men that advise or have advised the president want you to boycott me. Sounds pretty "grassroots," doesn't it?

Gang, your neighbors need to understand that the free ride our grandparents left us is over. Our rights are slipping away. They are trying to squelch free speech through mockery, intimidation, intimidation of advertisers, the Internet — anyway they can.

I go back to the question: When do your neighbors decide enough is enough? I guess when they realize that the only kind of speech that needs protection is the kind of speech that people don't like — especially people who have power. We just have to figure out a way to appeal to their better and bigger American nature, rather than their smaller, Republican or Democrat nature.

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

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of 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 multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of 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.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.