Glenn Beck: Boy Scouts boo Obama



Glenn Beck is seen here on GlennBeck.TV, a feature available exclusively to Glenn Beck Insider Extreme members. Learn more...

GLENN: I want to start with some audio from the Boy Scout jamboree. This is the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts. The President did not show up. He's the first President to not do so, it's my understanding. Is that right?

PAT: I think so.

GLENN: 100 year anniversary. It's a big deal, but he had to go be on The View. So, you understand his priorities. The President also, for awhile there, I believe he was not signing the Eagle Scout congratulatory letters. The White House says that was just a backlog and, you know, some sort of an error and he is doing that now, but when they played a videotape of him, this was the reaction of the Boy Scouts.

VOICE: (Booing.)

GLENN: I don't think they liked him. Now, here is my surprising commentary. Shame on the Boy Scouts, shame on the individual Boy Scouts there. If my son would have been a part of that, I would have asked him when he got home, did you do that? If he would have said "yes," I would have said, Shame on you. You're wearing your uniform. The Boy Scouts are about leading people. It was childish and I know you are still a child, but there were Eagle Scouts there. Would you see a member of our military do that?

PAT: No, but they're military.

GLENN: Excuse me.

PAT: Military.

GLENN: Is this your show or is this my show?

PAT: They're military

GLENN: This is my show. Hush up for a second.

PAT: Oh. So you're going to filibuster?

GLENN: Yes. You were the one

PAT: Filibuster.

Glenn: You were the one that got on the radio on Friday.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: And said that Keith Olberman was responsible for those shootings in Connecticut.

PAT: Right before I said he wasn't.

GLENN: It doesn't matter what you said. It's how Media Matters

PAT: Might have portrayed it in and what Keith Olberman may have been thinking.

GLENN: Portrayed it and so it's a good thing I get all my news from Media Matters. So, shut the pie hole! Now, here’s the thing. Pat and I have had a heated discussion on this off the air. We disagree and I'll let him make his counterpoint on another show another day, but here's the thing. Look. I have no problem if they want to express themselves this way, you know, they can do it. I think they tarnished the reputation of the Boy Scouts. Turning your back on it? Fine. Sitting there quietly and not applauding would have sent a powerful message, but booing is, you know you can do at a hockey game. I think it's beneath the Boy Scouts. He is the commander in chief and as much as I don't like this man and I don't like his policies and I really don't have a soft spot in my heart for him it's inappropriate, just inappropriate. Wouldn't be proud of my son if he did that. I would never treat the President like that. If the President came to an event where I was at and I've been there I did not boo the President. I didn't clap, but I stood politely. That's the way you handle it

STU: Because of the office.

GLENN: It's the office. It's the President of the United States. It's the office of the President of the United States.

PAT: I guess

GLENN: It's much bigger than a man.

STU: And you just hate the office of the President, Pat? Is that your counterpoint?

PAT: You're talking about the office that he pees all over day? Is that the office you're talking about?

STU: Pat Gray accuses Obama of urinating on the office.

GLENN: I had a conversation with friends this weekend. We were talking about the resolute desk and I said, if I see another picture of that man with his feet on the resolute desk, my head's going to explode. That is probably the most important piece of historic furniture outside of, Independence Hall that I can think of. Take your damn feet off the resolute desk, please. So, I understand. I understand how you feel, but explain how that is good for

PAT: Are they American citizens? Why can't they express themselves this way? I don't get it.

GLENN: They can. I'm not being him, but there's just too much information about Boy Scouts booing out there and they should control that message. I'm not saying that they can't do that. I think if it were my son, I would be disappointed in him

STU: You're not making a national policy. You're making a decision as a parent.

GLENN: As a parent. I'm not saying that the Boy Scouts shouldn't do that. I'm just saying that the scout leaders should have said, guys, guys, inappropriate. Now, if you couldn't do that on the field, I hope that some of them, at least, did that off the field. It's not right.

PAT: I don't know about that.

Glenn: Well, that's a figure of speech

STU: That is the counterpoint

STU: They're not military. It certainly wouldn't be appropriate for the U.S. military, because he's the commander in chief, he's ultimately their leader. These are Boy Scouts. Who cares? S I mean, what's the problem. I'm sure they hear all the time from their parents about this guy.

GLENN: Honor.

PAT: There's nothing, dishonorable, I don't think, about expressing yourself in a political way.

VOICE: (Booing.)

PAT: Or booing just because he's not there. It could be that.

GLENN: There's another option, too.

PAT: He disrespected them. They're disrespecting him. How about that?

GLENN: You don't you're not seriously making the point he started it? You're not seriously making that point?

PAT: It's a good point.

GLENN: Get Jackie on the phone. You're going to get hammered again.

VOICE: (Booing.)

PAT: Okay. If they're screaming obscenities, I'm with you. That would be wrong.

VOICE: (Booing.)

GLENN: What did he say?

PAT: Somebody said, I hope you're watching this. I think meaning President Obama.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It was a way to express their displeasure. What do you want them to do? Seriously,

GLENN: Is that the only way?

PAT: I think it's a way. It obviously got them some coverage on national radio, did it not.

GLENN: Yes, it did.

PAT: It might even get them on TV.

GLENN: I've got to tell you, when I first saw it, I go, Gosh, that feels good. But just because it feels good, do you do it?

PAT: Not necessarily. No, --

GLENN: But if somebody else started it and it feels good

PAT: No.

GLENN: then you do it?

PAT: No. And if it's not illegal, if it's not immoral. I don't know that it's immoral to boo the President.

GLENN: Is not immoral.

PAT: So, it is impolite? Maybe. There's an issue for Ms. Manners. I mean, I'm okay with it. If my son were there, if Shawn were there and he booed or Daniel and they probably would, based on everything they hear around the dinner table every night, I would be fine with it.

GLENN: Would Jackie?

PAT: Yeah. I think so. get her on the

GLENN: Get her on the phone.

PAT: Keith is calling right now.

GLENN: I don't think she would be.

PAT: She wouldn't be fine with our sons booing President Obama? Is that your position?

GLENN: In their uniform, in their uniform.

PAT: Well, again, if they're Marines, that's a different thing but it's a Boy Scout uniform, Boy Scouts.

GLENN: I'm sorry. What do the Boy Scouts stand for?

PAT: Let's see. Honorable, brave, clean, reverent.

GLENN: Is that reverent?

STU: Reverent is probably the

GLENN: I will get you that that's brave. In today's world, that is brave.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: So, I'll give you the brave.

STU: We learned from Joe Biden, the clean one does apply potentially here, from his commentary before the election.

GLENN: I'm just I'm just wondering if that is the Boy Scout if that's what you think of when you think of Boy Scouts. Not me.

STU: Reverent I think that is definitely violated when you're booing the President.

GLENN: I don't think it's honorable.

STU: You know, I think

PAT: I don't think it's dishonorable.

GLENN: If you're at a football game, yeah. You were at the 100th anniversary jamboree of the Boy Scouts of America that is supposed teach our boys to be better than, you know than the average run of the mill, to be more in control, to be honorable, decent, honest, prepared, reverent.

STU: You would love your son to step up and be above the fray there. You would love it. That would be a nice

GLENN: That's what that is about.

STU: You don't lock your kid in the basement for six months if he boos, clearly, but, ideally it would be nice to have them, like, I don't want to be a part of that.

PAT: Ideally, I'm totally fine with either of my sons booing the President.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you this. At the Restoring Honor Rally.

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: Restoring Honor Rally, you know what they have planned.

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: If the President were to record a two minute video, would you say that it was appropriate if people just shouted it down and booed it out?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Why? We're not wearing uniforms.

PAT: Have you ever been to a Scout jamboree? It's not a solemn assembly.

GLENN: I'm not saying they're all wearing their hoods because -- You know they all have hoods.

PAT: Who does?

GLENN: The Boy Scouts. Yeah, they have hoods. Anyway, go ahead.

PAT: So

STU: But that's a good point.

PAT: 8 28's going to be a different kind of event.

STU: It's just overtly nonpolitical.

PAT: And we've said that from the outset.

GLENN: Pat Gray announces Boy Scouts are political.

PAT: Chose The View over you.

GLENN: He deserves it.

PAT: He does. And I'm fine with them doing it.

GLENN: All right.

STU: Would you encourage it?

PAT: Would I encourage it?

GLENN: Would you say that your reaction to it is encouraging that kind of behavior for somebody in the oval office?

PAT: No. Because I just said I wouldn't encourage it.

GLENN: Now, let me ask you this.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Would if I showed up at I don't know an organization Girl Scouts. We'll say the Girl Scouts hate my guts and I had to go do an episode of JP Patches or, you know, whatever and I was on some clown show.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: You know, and I had to go do an episode and it was the 100th anniversary and I somehow or the other were the leader of the Girl Scouts free world and I didn't show up, you would go ahead and boo me too, if I were President?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Ronald Reagan?

PAT: Yes

Glenn: If he chose not to, just boo the President?

PAT: Yeah. It would be okay.

GLENN: Uh huh.

PAT: I don't think so. I would be okay with it.

GLENN: If they went to college, if the President went to college and he was just trying to speak

PAT: The President did go to college and he did speak.

GLENN: No. I'm saying if a President went to a college

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: If Ronald Reagan went to a college and they just booed him

PAT: It probably did happen.

GLENN: So, you endorse that?

PAT: No.

STU: He's just Switzerland on all of these things.

GLENN: I'm trying to figure out why you don't endorse that but you do endorse this.

PAT: Because there's no reason to boo the guy that shows up at your event and you've invited him there and he shows up and he gives as a speech as you're expecting him to do. That's not the case here.

GLENN: Okay. So , if Ronald Reagan

PAT: They invited him to be there. He chose not to be there. They expressed themselves.

GLENN: If Ronald Reagan was invited to a university and he decided to go on vacation with his wife, with 700 friends, and he went in a different place than she did and he took other friends, she took more friends and they both used really large jets.

PAT: Yeah. I'm not sure what you're getting at. I can't even imagine.

GLENN: I know. It's a weird scenario. It would never happen. And it was Ronald Reagan's birthday and he was separated from his wife on that birthday, he was on the other side of the world, Nancy was in

PAT: Europe?

GLENN: Yes. And she was doing all kinds I don't know why I'm concentrating on that so much, but somehow or the other I think it's important to the story. And Ronald Reagan decides not to go to this college, he's just going to cut a video, do you think it's appropriate that he get booed

PAT: Yeah. I think it's okay that they boo him. I would be okay with that.

GLENN: Even if they were wearing their lacrosse uniforms?

PAT: No. Then no, because lacrosse is different. That's like the U.S. military.

[NOTE: Transcript may have been edited to enhance readability - audio archive includes full segment as it was originally aired]

This week on the Glenn Beck Podcast, Glenn spoke with Vox co-founder Matthew Yglesias about his new book, "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."

Matthew and Glenn agree that, while conservatives and liberals may disagree on a lot, we're not as far apart as some make it seem. If we truly want America to continue doing great things, we must spend less time fighting amongst ourselves.

Watch a clip from the full interview with Matthew Yglesias below:


Find the full podcast on Glenn's YouTube channel or on Blaze Media's podcast network.

Want to listen to more Glenn Beck podcasts?

Subscribe to Glenn Beck's channel on YouTube for FREE access to more of his masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, or subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

'A convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists': Why is the New York Times defending George Soros?

Image source: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

On the "Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday, Glenn discussed the details of a recent New York Times article that claims left-wing billionaire financier George Soros "has become a convenient boogeyman for misinformation artists who have falsely claimed that he funds spontaneous Black Lives Matter protests as well as antifa, the decentralized and largely online, far-left activist network that opposes President Trump."

The Times article followed last week's bizarre Fox News segment in which former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared to be censored for criticizing Soros (read more here). The article also labeled Glenn a "conspiracy theorist" for his tweet supporting Gingrich.

Watch the video clip below for details:


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.

The former ambassador to Russia under the Obama Administration, Michael McFaul, came up with "7 Pillars of Color Revolution," a list of seven steps needed to incite the type of revolution used to upend Eastern European countries like Ukraine and Georgia in the past two decades. On his TV special this week, Glenn Beck broke down the seven steps and showed how they're happening right now in America.

Here are McFaul's seven steps:

1. Semi-autocratic regime (not fully autocratic) – provides opportunity to call incumbent leader "fascist"

2. Appearance of unpopular president or incumbent leader

3. United and organized opposition – Antifa, BLM

4. Effective system to convince the public (well before the election) of voter fraud

5. Compliant media to push voter fraud narrative

6. Political opposition organization able to mobilize "thousands to millions in the streets"

7. Division among military and police


Glenn explained each "pillar," offering examples and evidence of how the Obama administration laid out the plan for an Eastern European style revolution in order to completely upend the American system.

Last month, McFaul made a obvious attempt to downplay his "color revolutions" plan with the following tweet:

Two weeks later, he appeared to celebrate step seven of his plan in this now-deleted tweet:



As Glenn explains in this clip, the Obama administration's "7 Pillars of Color Revolution" are all playing out – just weeks before President Donald Trump takes on Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the November election.

Watch the video clip below to hear more from Glenn:


Watch the full special "CIVIL WAR: The Way America Could End in 2020" here.

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.

Start your free trial and get $20 off a one-year subscription with code BANTHIS.

Modern eugenics: Will Christians fight this deadly movement?

Photo by Olga Kononenko on Unsplash

Last month, without much fanfare, a new research paper disclosed that 94 percent of Belgian physicians support the killing of new-born babies after birth if they are diagnosed with a disability.

A shocking revelation indeed that did not receive the attention it demanded. Consider this along with parents who believe that if their unborn babies are pre-diagnosed with a disability, they would choose to abort their child. Upwards of 70 percent of mothers whose children are given a prenatal disability diagnosis, such as Down Syndrome, abort to avoid the possibility of being burdened with caring for a disabled child.

This disdain for the disabled hits close to home for me. In 1997, my family received a letter from Michael Schiavo, the husband of my sister, Terri Schiavo, informing us that he intended to petition a court to withdraw Terri's feeding tube.

For those who do not remember, in 1990, at the age of 26, Terri experienced a still-unexplained collapse while at home with Michael, who subsequently became her legal guardian. Terri required only love and care, food and water via feeding tube since she had difficulty swallowing as a result of her brain injury. Nonetheless, Michael's petition was successful, and Terri's life was intentionally ended in 2005 by depriving her of food and water, causing her to die from dehydration and starvation. It took almost two excruciating weeks.

Prior to my sister's predicament, the biases that existed towards persons with disabilities had been invisible to me. Since then, I have come to learn the dark history of deadly discrimination towards persons with disabilities.

Indeed, some 20 years prior to Germany's T4 eugenics movement, where upwards of 200,000 German citizens were targeted and killed because of their physical or mental disability, the United States was experiencing its own eugenics movement.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas documented some of this history in his concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., Justice Thomas describes how eugenics became part of the academic curriculum being taught in upwards of 400 American universities and colleges.

It was not solely race that was the target of the U.S. eugenics movement. Eugenicists also targeted the institutionalized due to incurable illness, the physically and cognitively disabled, the elderly, and those with medical dependency.

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which wiped out pro-life laws in nearly every state and opened the floodgates to abortion throughout the entirety of pregnancy. Since then, 60 million children have been killed. Abortion as we know it today has become a vehicle for a modern-day eugenics program.

Since the Catholic Church was established, the Truth of Christ was the greatest shield against these types of attacks on the human person and the best weapon in the fight for equality and justice. Tragically, however, for several decades, the Church has been infiltrated by modernist clergy, creating disorder and confusion among the laity, perverting the teachings of the Church and pushing a reckless supposed “social justice" agenda.

My family witnessed this firsthand during Terri's case. Church teaching is clear: it is our moral obligation to provide care for the cognitively disabled like Terri. However, Bishop Robert Lynch, who was the bishop of the Diocese of St. Petersburg, Florida, during Terri's case, offered no support and was derelict in his duties during the fight for Terri's life.

Bishop Lynch had an obligation to use his position to protect Terri from the people trying to kill her and to uphold Church teaching. Indeed, it was not only the silence of Bishop Lynch but that of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which also remained silent despite my family's pleas for help, that contributed to Terri being needlessly starved and dehydrated to death.

My family's experience, sadly, has turned out to be more of the rule than the exception. Consider what happened to Michael Hickson. Hickson was a 36-year-old, brain-injured person admitted to a Texas hospital after contracting COVID-19. Incredibly—and against the wishes of Michael's wife—the hospital decided not to treat Michael because they arbitrarily decided that his “quality of life" was “unacceptably low" due to his pre-existing disability. Michael died within a week once the decision not to treat him was imposed upon him despite the efforts of his wife to obtain basic care for her husband.

During my sister's case and our advocacy work with patients and their families, it would have been helpful to have a unified voice coming from our clergy consistently supporting the lives of our medically vulnerable. We desperately need to see faithful Catholic pastoral witness that confounds the expectations of the elite by pointing to Jesus Christ and the moral law.

A Church that appears more concerned with baptizing the latest social and political movements is a Church that may appear to be “relevant," but one that may also find itself swallowed up by the preoccupations of our time.

As Catholics, we know all too well the reluctance of priests to preach on issues of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and other pro-life issues. We have heard that the Church cannot risk becoming too political.

At the same time, some within the Church are now openly supporting Black Lives Matter, an organization that openly declares itself hostile to the family, to moral norms as taught by the Church, and whose founders embrace the deadly ideology of Marxism.

For example, Bishop Mark J. Seitz of El Paso, Texas, knelt in prayer with a cardboard sign asserting his support for this ideology.

Recently, during an online liturgy of the mass, Fr. Kenneth Boller at The Church of St. Francis Xavier in New York, led the congregation with what appears to sound like questions affirming the BLM agenda. Moreover, while reading these questions, pictures of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery, assumed victims of racial injustice, were placed on the altar of St. Francis Xavier Church, a place typically reserved for Saints of the Catholic Church.

Contrast these two stories with what happened in the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana, where Rev. Theodore Rothrock of St. Elizabeth Seton Church fell victim to the ire of Bishop Timothy Doherty. Fr. Rothrock used strong language in his weekly church bulletin criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement and its organizers. Consequently, Bishop Doherty suspended Fr. Rothrock from public ministry.

In 1972, Pope Pius VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." It seems that too many of our clergy today are enjoying the smell.

I encourage all who are concerned about the human right to life and about Christ-centered reforms in our culture and our Church to raise your voices for pastoral leadership in every area of our shared lives as Christian people.

Bobby Schindler is a Senior Fellow with Americans United for Life, Associate Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and President of the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network.