Glenn Beck: We're a Republic, Not an Empire





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

This week has kind of been a primer to get your brain in a different mode of thinking. Because "old think" isn't cutting it anymore. We've been talking about something the people at Cato have put together — drastic budget cut proposals. And quite honestly, we're not making any friends with this, because people don't want their slice of the pie taken away.

Tonight, I may even lose my own friendship because we zero in on my own sacred cow: national security.

Let me start here: According to The Economist, Americans overwhelmingly feel cutting spending is the best way to reduce the deficit — 62 percent. Five percent want to raise taxes.

But — and this is a huge "but" — as soon as you get out the scalpel and go to work, people say, whoa-whoa-whoa, wait a minute!

This is a chart that shows what we are up against when it comes to cutting the budget. You aren't cutting that are you? Look at how low support is for cutting things back. Everything is below 30 percent.

Really?

Only 12 percent want to cut highways?

Nineteen percent on unemployment benefits?

Only 22 percent want to cut back on science? I mean, I love pictures of Mars as much as the next guy, but I also like having a country.

It shouldn't be a tough decision, but apparently it is.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid combined make up about 40 percent of the federal budget. But look how little willingness there is to cut them:

Social Security: 7 percent

Medicare: 7 percent

Medicaid: 11 percent

The item we're least likely to cut is veterans' benefits: 6 percent.

(Are veterans benefits even in the same ballpark as Social Security? Not saving for retirement — or serving our country? They don't seem equal, but there is equal opposition to cutting them. It's because they have expanding so much that they touch everybody in one way or another.)

There is a bit more support for cutting defense: 22 percent. Of course, that shouldn't be surprising: You can get 10 percent to support just about anything. I mean, 6 percent of people believe the moon landing was faked and filmed at a Hollywood movie lot. Cutting national defense? That's the uber-left in that number.

But there is one category that people do want to cut.

Out of all the wasteful spending going on — fighting the imaginary global warming monster, wildly expensive and mismanaged mass transit projects, the federal Department of Education — the only thing Americans can seem to agree should be cut is foreign aid. Seventy-one percent of people want to cut it. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the rest of the world constantly whines about how evil we are, yet they don't seem to mind taking our money. And why wouldn't they? We seem to be content to just give it away.

In 1986 an earmark for Ireland was created for something called the International Fund for Ireland, created by the Irish and British to promote peace in Northern Ireland. Since 1996, U.S. taxpayers have contributed $280 million to the fund. It was raised to $17 million in 2010 — that's up $ 2 million from 2009. The original concerns of violence and poverty have long been gone, yet the money still flows in.

And who could forget the billion dollar American embassy in Iraq? With 10 times the amount of land reserved for a normal embassy, it's a 104-acre complex with 21 buildings, cinema, shopping area, restaurants, power plants, schools. It's the size of 80 football fields and the biggest embassy ever built. All it's missing is a giant statue of Saddam.

This is the kind of waste we are used to with our foreign aid, but President Obama recently increased the foreign aid budget to $49 billion in the middle of an economic crisis here at home. Some requests in his 2011 budget that go towards supposedly keeping us safe here at home:

$238.3 million in funds to assist Lebanon

$10 million for Egyptian students with financial needs — we have people that can't go to school here and we're sending Egyptian students to college?

$400 million in for assistance for the West Bank and Gaza

$2.2 billion to Israel to "procure defense articles and services to enhance the capacity of foreign security forces"

When a man goes overboard, the last thing you do is jump in after them. They are panicking and there's a good chance they will drag you down with them. You both die. Then how many people have you saved?

We're in the water. America used to be the strongest swimmer. We need to get back to shore and take care of ourselves.

We can help people by teaching our kids morals, values, ethics and how to use the free market to innovate and create. We are the people who invented Morse code, the assembly line, electricity distribution, the ATM, the typewriter, the pot belly stove. We need to be that nation again and improve the world through innovation. That's the best kind of foreign aid we can give: ideas and technology. That's how we can really change the world, not through sending wads of cash that dictators will take to build massive statues of themselves.

LoLook, I want to get one of those iPads, even though it sounds like a feminine hygiene product. I don't want it because someone from Apple tried to build one in my house. I want one because I've seen others using it and it looks cool.

The example we set now is what pisses everyone off: We say we're going to spread democracy, but we bed dictators, we bow to Saudi princes, when it's to our advantage. George Washington wanted us to be like the Swiss: Enemy of none, friend to all. Places like Germany — hey, we're glad you are all straightened out, but we're pulling out, you're on your own. We're not staying. We need to get out of the Korean Peninsula and Japan. No longer will we be the world's loiterers.p>

The United States spends approximately $102 billion annually to maintain troops, equipment, fleets and bases overseas — if you count Iraq and Afghanistan it jumps to $250 billion. Well, I'm tired of being the world's policeman. And in many cases we are the world's loiterers. We need to have a "no loitering" policy.

That policy comes from the progressives. The Republicans say we'll send in the "green helmets" and just nation build our way to global security. The liberals want to do it through the United Nations; they want to send in the "blue helmets" — which we pay for.

This doesn't work. I don't want to nation build. I don't want a global government or military force.

AnAnd for all the Don Rumsfelds out there watching who are cursing me out right now because they think no time is a good time to cut defense spending. Well, maybe this will help. This chart shows who accounts for all military spending in the world.

Almost half of all military spending in the world — 47 percent — is America. The next biggest spender is Europe — that's not even a country, they spent $289 billion on military-related expenses. We almost spent that much outside our country for our own defense!

So don't tell me we can't afford to cut back. Clearly we can.

And when we are in a situation like Afghanistan, we fight to win it. With all of our technology today, why can't we get in and out of Afghanistan in a couple of years? Because the politicians have their grimy little fingers on everything. Take the military off the leash; if you decide to go to war, unhook those dogs and get the hell out of the way.

If I were king for a day, here's my policy on defense:

We mind our own business: We wouldn't be pushing anything on other countries

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend

Nothing is in our interest if our values and principles are gone. Why do you think they hate us in the Middle East? Maybe it's because we don't stand for anything

Don't screw with us, because...

When we fight, we fight to win: We'll bring the full force and might of the U.S. military and wipe you off the face of the planet

We're coming home — and we won't waste our time rebuilding your country either. You messed with us? Your bad

OuOur defense budget needs to reflect that attitude. We can reduce the waste in our military and still be a lethal force.

It's time to shift our money out of foreign aid and long-standing commitments. We are not an empire, we are a republic. And it's time we start acting like the republic that we were meant to be.

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

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.