Glenn Beck: Prez approves of Ground Zero mosque



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


GLENN: Have you noticed a trend that he kind of reveals himself when he's not on prompter? I would like to know if the his pocket was vibrating about halfway through these comments, because I think maybe George Soros might have said, get him on the Blackberry, as he was saying this on Friday.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me be clear.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: As a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. (Applause).

PAT: Good comment.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: That includes the right to build a place of worship in a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan.

GLENN: Mmm hmmm. Now, for anybody who said when they wanted to know whether this was a good idea or not, "I don't know; let me check with an attorney," there you have your answer and this came as a surprise to me because I didn't know that in this country that everybody has a right to build something, you know

PAT: A religious edifice?

GLENN: A religious edifice.

PAT: Who knew.

GLENN: I didn't know that.

PAT: They were keeping that pretty quiet.

GLENN: Is that the Fourth Amendment?

PAT: I think it's the 16th.

GLENN: The Sixteenth Amendment.

PAT: Or the 60th, something like that.

GLENN: Because it's a rather new one I'm not familiar with, the right of freedom of religion.

PAT: That's wacky. Really?

GLENN: For those of you who were looking for an attorney's point of view on this, apparently it's somewhere in the Constitution. It might be in the good and plenty clause that you have a right to worship God in this country.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Wow. Who saw that coming.

GLENN: I didn't. Now, because whenever he says, let me be clear, he's not, he had to go and clarify his "Let me be clear" speech that he gave on Friday, and here's what he said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, the you know, my intention was to simply let people know what I thought which was that in this country.

GLENN: Country.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We treat everybody equally.

GLENN: Okay, stop for a second. Hang on just a second. So do we do that in this country? Do we treat everybody equally?

PAT: No.

GLENN: What do you mean?

PAT: I mean, there's many examples of that.

GLENN: Oh, give me one.

PAT: Well, let's see.

GLENN: Progressive income tax.

PAT: Yeah, how about that?

GLENN: No.

PAT: No?

GLENN: No, I won't take that one. I gave you that one.

PAT: You gave it to me and now you won't take it?

GLENN: I won't take that one because they haven't paid their fair share. People are equal, just some people are more equal than others.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: So give me another one.

PAT: The healthcare, the new healthcare bill.

GLENN: What do you mean?

PAT: Well, only the richest 1% pay any taxes on that.

GLENN: Yeah, but that's almost like the progressive income tax thing. That's still just, that's a good or a service or something like that.

PAT: Healthcare? No, that's a right. That's a new right.

GLENN: Oh, that's right, that's in the good and plenty clause.

PAT: That's in the good and plenty clause, that's right.

GLENN: That's right next to build a mosque right next to anywhere that is really, really inappropriate.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Now, I find it interesting that he is, he's talking about how we treat people equally here. I don't think we do. I don't think we do. And I really thought that that is kind of what the equal rights movement was all about, the Civil Rights Movement, the equal rights movement, it was kind of like, we don't treat people equally here and so maybe we should treat people equally.

PAT: That's what you thought that was about?

GLENN: Well, I did up until recently.

PAT: Well, Al Sharpton clarified that.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: You know, when he told us it was about equal stuff.

GLENN: Yeah, that's right. He wasn't talking about putting a black man in the White House.

PAT: No.

GLENN: It was equal stuff in everybody's house.

PAT: In everybody's house.

GLENN: So that was a good clarifier there.

PAT: Yeah, it was.

GLENN: I didn't see that coming. I didn't know that. Okay. So here's some more.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion.

GLENN: Didn't know that.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I was not commenting and I will not comment.

GLENN: He will not.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: On the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there.

GLENN: Right.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I was commenting very specifically on the right to people that dates back to our founding. That's what our country's about. And I think it's very important that

GLENN: Okay.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: you know, as difficult as some of these issues are, you know, we need to stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about.

PAT: And I think that now you could count on one finger the number of times this guy has spoken about the rights that date back to our founding.

GLENN: On one finger?

PAT: I think on one finger.

GLENN: Are we counting

PAT: I think that's it.

GLENN: Are we counting all the knuckles?

PAT: I think we're counting knuckles, I think we're counting toes. You know, if you included everything, you just need one finger.

GLENN: Really?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Huh.

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: Because I haven't heard him really talk about defending the Constitution.

PAT: No

GLENN: Because what the Constitution is really is a charter of negative liberties.

PAT: Negative liberties, yeah.

GLENN: When it really should be a charter of the things that the government must do for you and not those things that the government

PAT: And unfortunately

GLENN: Right.

PAT: As radical as a lot of people thought the Warren court was.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It didn't go far enough.

GLENN: It didn't go far enough.

PAT: It didn't go far enough.

GLENN: To quote someone, I'm not really sure.

PAT: A redistributive change in America. You know what I mean?

GLENN: Well, I mean

PAT: Do you know what I'm saying?

GLENN: You know what the problem with the Civil Rights Movement was.

PAT: What was it?

GLENN: Well, they didn't really take into consideration all of the organizations, all of the community organizations, all of the businesses and that could really be cobbled together.

PAT: Gosh, that's sounding familiar. That's sounding familiar.

GLENN: I'm trying to remember exactly.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

PAT: Negative.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government

GLENN: Should do.

PAT: Must do.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: And that hasn't shifted. And one of the I think tragedies of the Civil Rights Movement.

GLENN: It's a tragedy, it is.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Because the Civil Rights Movement became so court focused.

GLENN: Court focused.

PAT: See.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think that there was a tendency to lose

PAT: A tendency.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: track of political and community organizing

GLENN: Yes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

PAT: There you go.

GLENN: I think the coalition

PRESIDENT OBAMA: In some ways we still suffer with that.

GLENN: We do suffer from that.

PAT: It's a tragedy.

GLENN: And it is a tragedy that they haven't broken free of the

PAT: The constraints our founders put.

GLENN: On the Constitution.

PAT: I hate that.

GLENN: That's the thing that I when I think of the mosque, I think to myself, gee, if they could only break free of some of the fundamental restraints put on in the Constitution by our founders.

PAT: Oh, you know what would be great.

GLENN: What?

PAT: Is fundamental transformation so that you could break free from some of those restraints.

GLENN: Well, that, I mean, as radical

PAT: That would be great!

GLENN: As radical as some people might think that fundamental transformation is and changing the Constitution from a charter of negative liberties to a charter of positive liberties, you know, the things that the government should and must do for you, you know, what I think one of the tragedies of the first 18 months of the Obama administration has been is that we have forgotten about all of the, all of the basic power of coming in and putting, you know, for instance, Siberia or the gulags or a KGB like organization and, you know, kind of the, cobble together the foundation of power, these organizations that could be the foundation of power.

PAT: Of real power.

GLENN: Of real power.

PAT: That shut people up.

GLENN: Yeah, where you could really have some redistributive change.

PAT: (Laughing). And it's a tragedy that they haven't done that yet.

GLENN: It is.

PAT: They haven't done that yet.

GLENN: That is the tragedy of the first 18 months of this administration.

PAT: A lot of people would say that. There are those who would say they should have done that by now.

GLENN: There are those that would say that and I believe are saying that right now.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: And many of them I'm sure will be attending that new mosque.

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

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.