Glenn Beck: Taxing Success


List of U.S. colleges and universities by endowment

Well, now in Massachusetts they are looking to tax college endowments, university endowments that have more than a billion dollars in it.  They say that by doing this, they can put more than a billion dollars a year into the state revenue.  Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over a billion dollars.  Now, the universities are very upset and here's quite possibly -- I want to frame this.  I want to frame this.  I want this on my wall of my office.  When a nonprofit, when a nonprofit is making money, it's mind-boggling.  Why tax them?

Now, one guy who is head of the ways and means committee in Massachusetts says it's mind-boggling that an entity wouldn't be paying taxes that has $34 billion.  How can you justify that when people can't afford to live, how could you justify not taxing them?  Ready?  Here it is.  This is what I want framed.  Kevin Casey, Harvard's associate vice president for government, community and public affairs said, "You can't do that.  You'd be taxing success."  No, it gets better.  "And over time this would put us at a competitive disadvantage.  It would hurt the state."  No, you're kidding me.  It's like you're taxing success by taxing people who are making money and who happen to be richer than others?  You're taxing success?  Boy, Kevin, I never looked at it that way.  You might be onto something there.  "Over time this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage."  No, it would put Harvard at a disadvantage against those who didn't get taxed?  No.  Who might pay a lower tax?  It might put that company at a disadvantage?  No, no, Kevin, you're looking at it wrong.  We're just trying to help out Greater New Haven State Technical College.  That's what we're trying to do.  We're only trying -- it's affirmative action for Greater New Haven State Technical College.  We're trying to help them.  We're trying to level the playing field.  It's only out of fairness, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  It might put them at a -- no.

And then he goes on.  In the final insult to injury he goes on to say, "And it would hurt the commonwealth.  It would hurt the state."  How?  How?  Are you saying because Harvard wouldn't be able to have so much money so they couldn't grow?  So they couldn't hire more people?  They couldn't bring more people into the state?  I never thought of that when I was thinking about taxes and companies.  I just thought, oh, they're screwing the state; the bigger they get, the more people they hire, the more people that live here.  It's crazy.  It's almost like you're talking about the philosophy of, oh, I don't know, Texas.  It's almost like you're describing the philosophy of, oh, I don't know, a conservative.  It's like you're taxing success.  No, Kevin, you're wrong.  It's not like we're taxing success.  We would be taxing success.  Oh, sucks, doesn't it?  And yet I could guarantee you it's these same eggheads and people like Barack Obama who will go right after Exxon and not understand.

Right now there's a big offshore oil convention going on in Houston, which is surprising.  One of the most profitable and economically secure cities in America right now.  Hmmm, what's up with that, I wonder?  Maybe it has something to do with no state income tax.  Maybe it has something to do with energy and oil.  But why concentrate on the little details like that?  In Houston right now there is this oil convention going on for offshore drilling.  All of the countries, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Kuwait, Venezuela, all of the -- Brazil, everybody is at this convention.  And what are they talking about?  Offshore drilling.  They're all using our technology to drill, and a lot of them in the Gulf of Mexico.  "But we won't drill that because that's unsafe.  That's wrong."  So we'll let other countries do it.  They will claim and stake a claim for 100 years for the oil underneath the Gulf of Mexico but we won't take it.  We won't take it.  No, no, no.  We've got evil universities.  We've got evil oil companies here.  Oh, my gosh, these evil oil companies.  We've got to drag their butts in front of congress, ask them why they're making so much money.  Oh, yeah.  Meanwhile Putin makes people president in Russia if you are the head of an oil company:  Hey, congratulations, you are successful; you are the next President.

Us, can you imagine having the president of an oil company be the President of the United States in this country?  (Gasping).  "What?"  Yet, you would absolutely be somebody who is the president of a university.  Why, he's respected and he will go after those evil oil companies.  "But not the sacred university.  That might be like taxing success."

On the Basis of Sex. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you probably didn't expect those five words to come out of me this morning. No, that's not my version of a clickbait headline to get you to pay attention — although that probably just happened — but this is the title to the new movie based on the life of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

RELATED: Here's the Problem With the New Ruth Bader Ginsburg Documentary

Progressives and liberals have been hovering over YouTube like a pack of rabid wolves, anxiously awaiting the first trailer to drop. And — three days — they got their wish. Something in the last few seconds caught my ear. Watch:

Now my first thought after hearing that went something like this: The word "freedom" is literally the fifth frigging word in the first sentence of the First Amendment. It shows up for the second time just two sentences later. How do you screw that up? I always assumed that liberal Hollywood movie makers had never really read the Constitution, but this is just sad.

But my second thought was that maybe they don't consider the Bill of Rights actually part of the Constitution. However, according to the National Constitution Center, the Bill of Rights officially became part of the Constitution — not a separate document — when it was ratified in 1791. This is rather easy to fact check, so there's really no excuse here.

But then I had another thought. Either liberal Hollywood forgot that the Constitution changed in 1791, or they actually prefer the vaguer pre-1791 version of the Constitution where God-given rights can be excluded if the state so pleases. Think about it. The Bill of Rights is the single greatest roadblock to the radical Left's "progress." Do you hate the fact that private gun ownership encourages self reliance and personal freedom? Do you also hate the fact that dissenting views, opinions and speech can't be silenced and crushed? Then the Bill of Rights is a clear and present danger to your agenda. It's enemy number one.

The new Left that is radically moving toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791.

You see, the new Left that is radically moving further toward the extreme absolutely abhors the year 1791. They wish it never happened. The Bill of Rights is a constant reminder that some FREEDOMS can't be given by the government, they're granted by GOD. And that thought — you being aware of that — scares the hell out of them.

Now, it's possible I thought too much into this. It's also possible the screen writer made a simple mistake and thought Ruth Bader Ginsburg was actually born before 1791, figuring it would be a nice tip of the hat to her longevity. I can actually see how you could make that mistake. But it's also possible that this is a sign of the times we live in.

The Bill of Rights is under attack, maybe more now than ever. It's never been more important to let the Constitution of 1791 be our guide, true north and lighthouse.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.

How did this slip by?

The Left has been foaming at the mouth waiting for this movie to drop and when the trailer finally hit the interwebs, it ended with an embarrassing factual error about the Constitution.

What will happen when the Titan kneels?

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

You can tell that the NFL season is approaching because you can hear the whining from highly-paid athletes as they prepare their kneepads for some kneeling.

In May, the NFL instated a policy that penalizes players who take a knee during the national anthem.

RELATED: VIRTUE SIGNALLING: It's time for the NFL to dump the politics

"A club will be fined by the League if its personnel are on the field and do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem," the statement said. "The Commissioner will impose appropriate discipline on league personnel who do not stand and show respect for the flag and the Anthem."

Tennessee Titan's defensive end Jurrell Casey has decided that he will continue his whining and kneeling.

"I'm going to take my fine," Casey said in an interview. "It is what it is, I ain't going to let them stop me from doing what I want to do. If they want to have these battles between players and organizations, this is the way it's going to be."

Maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics.

He added that "At the end of the day, we got to do a job, but I will continue to use my platform to keep on speaking up."

Yes, he does have a job to do. And that job is playing football. His bosses have made it clear that political activism is not part of the job. Who knows, maybe Casey can find work elsewhere. I hear that Universities love to hire self-righteous ranting lunatics. There's also Starbucks. They need a self-righteous CEO.

All anyone can talk about right now is Russia and collusion, and for good reason. Special Counsel Robert Mueller just indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers for cyber attacks and the hacking of cyber-systems in energy, nuclear, water, and manufacturing sectors which you can read about here.

RELATED: There are three tribes when it comes to Trump and Russia: Which tribe do you belong to?

The Trump-Russia scandal, in a word, is maniacal. There are many moving parts that are very hard to solve — or simply don't want to be solved. All of these are "mysteries wrapped in an enigma," asserted Glenn on Wednesday's episode of "The Glenn Beck Radio Program."

From the curious case of Imran Awan to the hacking of DNC servers to "Russian" meddling in elections via social media, all of these deserve scrutiny.

On today's episode, Glenn examined seven scandals that make up the Russia connection:

  1. Russian operatives who used social media to divide Americans during the 2016 election.
  2. The meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
  3. The Fusion GPS Dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
  4. Voter fraud in Illinois.
  5. Hillary Clinton's emails.
  6. Imran Awan. Awan was an IT staffer for Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives who was part of a federal investigation and was arrested on bank fraud charges.
  7. Lastly, the 2016 DNC email leaks.

For the entire explanation, tune into the podcast below:

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn Beck argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.

Tribe one is the #Resistance. They are the ones who believe that everything President Trump does is bad. They're also the ones who call for impeachment and who label President Trump a "treasonous traitor" even before a summit with a foreign leader takes place.

RELATED: Russia hacking Hillary's emails is no laughing matter

Those, according to Glenn's analysis, include groups like Think Progress, who published an article suggesting that women's rights would be rolled back if the President's SCOTUS nominee is confirmed by the Senate. This tribe also includes progressive talking heads and far Left publications and politicians like The New York Times and Hillary Clinton.

Tribe two are those who defend the President and his actions at all costs. He can do no wrong. These are the people who deny the President's mistakes. They believe the President is a master chess player and everyone else is a pawn in Trump's game.

Both who operate in tribes one and two maintain a "win at all costs" mentality. They don't care what happens as long as their side wins. Glenn calls this a "cult of personality madness."

Tribe three are those who are "free thinkers." These people question the President with boldness and aim for intellectual honesty when evaluating the President's policies and behavior.

Glenn believes tribe one and tribe two are smaller than tribe three.

So, what do all these tribes have to do with Trump and the Russians? Find out in the clip below.

Where do you fall when it comes to Trump and Russia?

When it comes to Donald Trump, Glenn argues that there are three tribes that categorize the way people examine him regarding his foreign and domestic policy.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.