Glenn Beck: Fireman let house burn over $75



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

GLENN: Homeowner Gene Cranick said he offered to pay whatever it would take for fire fighters to put out the flames, but he was told it was too late. They couldn't do anything to stop his house from burning. A county in Tennessee every year says you have to pay $75 if you want fire protection from the city of south fall ton. The Cranicks didn't play didn't pay. The mayor said if the homeowners don't pay, they're out of luck. This is what was on television the night after.

VOICE: A house goes up in flames and fire fighters don't respond, despite the homeowner's plea for help.

VOICE: I didn't pay my $75 and that's what they want, $75 and they don't care how much they burn down.

VOICE: Imagine your home catches fire but the local fire department first won't respond, then watches it burn.

VOICE: That's exactly what happened to a local family tonight. A local neighborhood is furious after fire fighters watch as an Obion County Tennessee home burned to the ground. The homeowner said he offered to pay whatever it would take for fire fighters to put out the flames but was told it was too late and they wouldn't do anything to stop his house from burning. Each year Obion County residents must pay $75 if they want fire protection from the City of South Fulton. This family did not pay and the mayor says if they don't pay, they're out of luck.

Local 6's Jason Heads joins us now with our top story tonight. Jason, we've talked about this issue before. Homes on fire but the family didn't pay the $75 fee. So, the fire department doesn't respond. What finally got those fire fighters to leave the station?

VOICE: Well, Jennifer, this fire went on for hours because garden hoses just wouldn't put it out. It wasn't until that fire spread to a neighbor's property that the fire department would respond. It turns out the neighbor had paid the fee.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: I thought they would come out and put it out, even if you hadn't paid your $75.

PAT: Well, you're wrong.

GLENN: You're wrong.



Vote and Comment: Is Burning Home Sign of ‘Tea Party’ America?

PAT: Even if you pay your 75, I thought they would go ahead and put it out.

Glenn: Here's the thing. This is

PAT: And then put it out. I thought they would, but they didn't put it out.

GLENN: Okay. All right.

PAT: I wanted them to put it out, but I didn't pay $75 and they wouldn't put it out.

GLENN: Thank you. Here's the thing. Those who are just on raw feeling are not going to understand. It's $75 at the at the beginning of the year. You pay it and they put your house out. If you don't pay it, they don't put your house out.

PAT: Yeah, but I thought they were going to put the house out even though I didn't pay.

GLENN: Okay. If they did that, would anyone pay their $75?

PAT: Well, you would they would think that they were going to put it out, anyway, and when they don't come and put it out and watch your house burning to the ground, that ain't right.

GLENN: If they did if they did put the fire out and make an exception for your house and you didn't pay

PAT: Then others get bigger house put out, too. That's what the fire department does, put out fires.

GLENN: Right. They don't have the money to put the fires out. They can't keep the fire department

PAT: What's the fire department for if you don't put out fires?

GLENN: You won't have one because you can't afford it.

PAT: I thought they put out my fire even though I didn't pay the $75.

GLENN: See, this is the kind of argument that America will have.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: And it goes nowhere if you go on to well, compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion or, well, they should have put it out. What is the fire department for? No. What is the $75 for? To keep the firemen available, to keep the fire trucks running, to pay for the fire department to have people employed to put the fire out. If you don't pay your $75, then that hurts the fire department. They can't use those resources and you would be sponging off of your neighbor's $75 if you they put out your neighbor's house and you didn't pay for it I mean in your neighbor didn't pay for it, you did, and they put out their house, your neighbor is sponging off of your $75 inches and as soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the 75 bucks, no one

GLENN: No one

PAT: will pay $275.

GLENN: Why would you pay the $75? You don't have to. They're going to put it out, anyway.

PAT: Yeah. End to the program.

GLENN: This is important for America to have this debate because, A, this is the kind of stuff that is going to happen. We are going to start to have to have these kinds of things.

Now, if you think that's insane, this is Obamacare. Obama has just changed the system. Now, ask yourself, have this debate with your friends: What happens if they put this fire out?

PAT: Well, they would have saved the house.

GLENN: Talk to me about the next time that you have to write a check for $75. When you have to write the check for the next and your neighbor's house was put out, even though they didn't pay the $75, are you going to pay the $75, especially when that $75 you can use for something else? Are you going to pay the $57? The answer, if you want to answer honestly, will be know? You will find, especially in tough times, something else to do with that $75.

Well, now, after you've answered that question about this fire insurance, let me ask you the same question about your health insurance. If you can get away with not paying for your health insurance because it's too expensive and why should you pay for it and, really, if I get sick, they'll only fine me a thousand dollars and they have to treat me, anyway, and I can just call up an insurance company if I've gotten if I have cancer and I say, Hey, I need to sign up for insurance. Well, do you have any preexisting conditions? Yes. Cancer. And they have no choice but to cover you, that's like calling 9 1 1. Well, did you pay your $75? No, but I'm going to when you get here.

PAT: Apparently they offered. Apparently they offered to pay it.

GLENN: Sure. Of course they did. That is the idea of insurance. You'll pay whatever when it happens. Well, no. Pay $75 and by paying that $75, it spreads the total out for everybody. Not everybody's house is not going to burn down and if it does, well, the fire department's not going to be able to put them all out.

STU: An important point here is that previous to the $75 policy, there was no fire coverage at all for these areas. It was a rural area and they didn't go out there for any reason, for any fire at any time. They implemented the $75 fee to give some access to fire services for these people. Before that both houses burned to the ground, both of them, and now only one of them did. So, I mean, it's a tough decision. I understand that you're there and everything else and it's a there's got to be

GLENN: There's no choice. If you put the fire out, no one will pay and then you are bankrupt and there's to pay for any fire insurance

STU: And after this everybody is paying the $75.

PAT: Everybody

STU: Everyone.

GLENN: They know.

PAT: This is the same argument that we have almost every day. It's social justice or equal justice. Equal justice is you didn't pay your 75 bucks, the house burns to the ground; because your neighbor did pay the 75 bucks, we're going to watch over their house. Social justice is, Well, your house is on fire, we're here, anyway. We're going to put it out.

GLENN: And equal justice, then requires you as somebody in the community or church or somebody else that now says we're going to help them rebuild the house, we're going to help them out, we're going to make sure they have a place to stay and a place to eat.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Social justice takes it and forces the community to do it, but real justice, real justice and real hope, real faith, real charity could have also said these guys could have come and said we know our responsibility for our house and it's $75 of the you go to the church and say, I don't have $75. Can I do anything? I'll work for the whole year on something for $75, but I want to be responsible. Can you help me pay the $75? And I know at least my church would give you they would write the check for you and then you would have to serve and you would work out of that $75. You would work at a soup kitchen or you would work at the pantry or something, that you would earn that money if it was really, truly necessary, you would person the money and they would help you do it and if your church isn't doing that, you need to talk to your church and say, Why aren't we helping each other? We've got to do these things. That's what it's about. But social justice will condemn this fire department. They will say they should have fought it. Social justice will now take it from other people and destroy the system. They will push it up to a government responsibility instead of the individual's responsibility, not just the people in the house but the neighbors and the community and the friends. That's just the way it is. $75 is a lot of money to some people, a lot of money, but if it is the house burning down, I think $75 is a reasonable amount of money to ask and say, I need help, can somebody help me with the $75? And if you if you're willing to work for it, yes, yes, $75? You can't tell your neighbors, your friends, you have no neighbors or friends that you can say, Hey, I'll do that. And can I mow your lawn for $10 this week? Can I mow your lawn for the next seven and a half weeks for $10 a week?

STU: You could probably work for the fire department to work out of $75. I mean go to them. They probably have something you could do for a weekend that would make you $75.

GLENN: You can work one shift at McDonald's that everybody likes to make fun of. Now, here is the caveat. If there is someone in the house, the fire fighters have a moral responsibility to go in and save people

STU: Yeah. You have to.

GLENN: But not stuff. As long as there's nobody in the house

PAT: What about a dog, cat, pets?

STU: Yeah. I say "yes," you've got to save the dogs.

GLENN: I say yes. It kills me, but I have

PAT: You've got to say "yes" on the dog.

GLENN: Unless it's putting the firemen in danger. I'm not going to put the house out, but I will back up the truck, let's get the dog. Let's make sure the dog is okay, unless it puts the firemen in danger. You don't risk lives for a cat or a dog a firemen.

PAT: No.

GLENN: I mean, I hate to say that because I love my dogs

STU: Oh, yeah. Human life is obviously the pentacle here. It's interesting, though. It's not cut and dry as most of these things are. You're sitting there. You have the opportunity. I mean, I would think as a policy, obviously it's, you know look. You didn't pay your money, but as you're standing there with the hose in your hands and all you've got to do is flip, you've got to think the fire fighters were very conflicted over that, standing right there.

GLENN: They have to. And fire fighters are heroes, man. They love to do this. They live for that. So, it's not the fire fighters.

 

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.

This is a moment "Cynical Theories" author James Lindsay probably hoped would never come. The liberal mathematician and host of the "New Discourses Podcast" recently came out as "unhappily" voting Republican, including for President Donald Trump, because the Democratic Party is now being controlled by a far-left movement that seeks to destroy our country and the U.S. Constitution.

He joined Glenn Beck on the radio program Thursday to explain why this election isn't "Trump versus Biden." It's Trump versus a "movement that wants to tear apart American society at its very foundation." Lindsay warned that if it isn't stopped, the left can toss out our rights by rewriting the Constitution — or abolishing it altogether.

"A lot of people don't understand what's happening with the election we have right now," he said. "They think it's a choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. And at the surface level, of course, it is. We're voting for each candidate to be duly put into the office of president. But that's not what we really have going on. We have, in Donald Trump, a man who's going to govern as we've all seen — the way he feels like he's going to govern. And we have in Joe Biden, a man captured by a movement that wants to tear apart the American society at its very foundation."

Lindsay noted the popular leftist narratives that call to "abolish anything they don't like," which now includes the U.S. Constitution. He added that "this is the movement that is controlling the Democratic Party."

"It is my belief, that there has been a largely effective kind of silent coup of the Democratic Party, that's turned it completely under the control of this movement. And that's what we're going to be electing with Joe Biden. So I can't do it," he said.

Watch the video below for more details: