Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor under the Obama administration who denied leaking the names of Trump officials, proved one thing on her recent media tour: The media is utterly biased and void of intellectual integrity.

Rice's statements on the unmasking scandal made it clear that in the normal process of the national security business, she asked the National Security Association for the names of certain Americans involved with President Trump's team. However, her claim that she didn't "leak" names was merely a game of semantics --- and the media knew it.

"Her claim is she didn't leak those names. Well, you don't have to when you unmask them. It goes out to the mass. Everybody who is on the list, everyone in government who got that gets the update with the unmasked names," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

RELATED: A Chalkboard Lesson in Grammar: ‘I Leaked Nothing to Nobody’

Rice also said she didn't seek the names for "political purposes." Again, a game of semantics the media let slide.

"Media, you wonder why Donald Trump became president of the United States? This is your example," Glenn said. "You're doing it again. For anybody who thought possibly that you would have a backbone, that you have learned something, that you have become enlightened, you're doing it again! You are taking a story and you are picking the winner. You are picking the one you choose to believe."

Rice's previous lies to the American public should have left her with zero credibility, and yet the media gave her a platform to lie more without being challenged.

"It's your job to dissect this story and to show where the truth is and how it's all being lumped together to make it appear as though she's telling the truth," Glenn said. "This is the problem."

He continued.

"With so much dishonesty in the government, the credibility of those we've elected to serve us is completely shot. And so what do we do? We elect somebody like Donald Trump --- not because of the credibility of the people in the government, but because he told us the truth. And this is the truth: You can't believe the media. They are in on the game, and this Susan Rice story is proof positive," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Democrats have positioned themselves as the keepers of equality, the ferocious defenders of the underdog. But in honesty, nothing could be further from the truth. The real legacy of the Democratic Party is one of slavery, hypocrisy and lies. Today, the party has moved so far left that John F. Kennedy wouldn't recognize it --- or have a place within it. The roots of progressivism, planted in the 1800s, with seeds sewn by President Woodrow Wilson in the 1900s, have born rotten fruit, choking off the freedom of individuals and enslaving them to the government.

Listen to the full series from The Glenn Beck Program:

History of the Democratic Party: Part I

Progressives have mastered the language of manipulation, always finding a way to turn the narrative in their favor. Remarkably, the party with deep roots in slavery managed to rebrand the Republican Party as racist --- a problem that plagues conservatives to this day. Join Glenn in this serial as he revisits the true history of the Democratic Party and corrects the record.

History of the Democratic Party: Part II

Over the past 200 years, Democrats as an institution --- not the average member --- evolved from overt to covert racism. The tactics they used to control minorities just changed, shifting from actual slavery on cotton plantations to ensuring blacks stayed on the plantation of government assistance.

History of the Democratic Party: Part III

The Democratic Party has indeed been the party of diversity. It has persecuted Native Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and German Americans alike. They love to hear from people with all kinds of views and backgrounds --- as long as they're in lockstep with the prevailing elites of the party. After all, they are Democrats.

History of the Democratic Party: Part IV

The real legacy of the Democrat Party is one of slavery, hypocrisy and lies. The party today has moved so far left that John F. Kennedy wouldn't recognize it --- or have a place within it. The roots of progressivism, planted in the 1800s, with seeds sewn by President Woodrow Wilson in the 1900s, have born rotten fruit, choking off and eliminating all other fruit that might have existed.

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

Unless you are a political junkie, the confirmation process for the Supreme Court is not exactly must-see TV, but the results will shape the courts for decades. Over the next two to three weeks, Judge Neil Gorsuch will field questions from both sides with most of the intensity predictably coming from the left. The good news is the left isn't likely to find many arrows to sling.

Gorsuch appears to be devoid of the proverbial skeleton in the closet that Democrats hope to find, making his confirmation a near certainty --- knock on wood. That said, there are several scenarios that could play out of the next several weeks. Here are the five most likely:

1| Democrats Roll Over

It only takes a simple majority for confirmation, meaning Gorsuch only needs 51 votes. Republicans own the majority of seats in the Senate with 52 and none are likely to vote "no." If a few Democrat votes are swayed his way, Gorsuch could be confirmed with a supermajority of 60 votes, making it impossible for Democrats to filibuster.

2| The Nuclear Option

Thanks to Harry Reid reinstating the parliamentary rule of the nuclear option in 2013, Republicans are able to invoke that rule and bypass the 60 vote threshold. If Republicans choose to implement the nuclear option, only a simple majority is needed and Gorsuch would be confirmed. Utilizing this option would almost certainly make for an all out war for the next nomination which could happen as early as this year.

3| The Two-Speech Rule

A Senate rule mandates the Senate stay in the same legislative day until filibustering senators give up on their efforts. This is essentially a way to tire out the filibuster and exhaust the objecting minority to run out the clock. Confirmation would only require the simple majority of 51 votes this way.

4| Punt

While highly unlikely, this would occur if, for whatever reason, President Trump withdraws the nomination. Whether he's expending too much political capital or some scandal were to explode, Trump could just punt on Gorsuch and go back to the drawing board.

5| Democrats Actually Like Gorsuch

It's no as farfetched as it might sound. Gorsuch is a very reasonable judge who was confirmed unanimously 10 years ago to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. If Republicans and Gorsuch sway a handful of Democrats, he could easily push through with a supermajority.

Analysis

From most reports, there's not much to object to when it comes to Judge Gorsuch --- even for Democrats. Don't get too excited just yet, though. Democrats will have to play the part of taking a stand and cast a few votes against him.

Don't expect Trump to punt, he hasn't seemed too concerned with a little opposition. When he chooses his guy, he tends to stand by him. Invoking the nuclear option isn't likely either, as it could have serious ramifications no one wants to deal with this early on in an administration.

Watch for enough Democrats to cave for a supermajority. Republicans have the upper hand and Democrats know it. Judge Gorsuch is a conservative's dream, but he's not really a liberal's worst nightmare either. As it stands now, we can look forward to hearing the name Justice Gorsuch for decades to come.

Watch the video for a sneak peak and answers to these thought-provoking questions:

• Is there a possibility President Trump is doing exactly the right thing with his budget?

• What was the original role of the government and what has it turned into?

• What percent of PBS is funded by the federal government?

Watch the full episode on-demand at TheBlaze TV.

In 1988, at the swearing-in ceremony for Anthony M. Kennedy, now a senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, President Ronald Reagan said this:

The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution and lesser laws, not to make them. It was to protect the integrity of the Constitution, not to add to it or subtract from it --- certainly not to rewrite it.

In his usual manner, Ronald Reagan said it well and succinctly. The role of the Supreme Court is to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States when deciding the outcome of cases. Period, that's it. Unfortunately, the court has gradually abandoned its essential role under the Constitution to neutrally interpret laws and constitutional provisions without personal bias.

What's getting in the way?

1| Politicizing the Court

No case ends up in the Supreme Court without making its way through the lower courts, giving both sides of the aisle plenty of time to form opinions and politicize issues. By the time cases are heard in the high court, especially those with more notoriety, tempers can be heated and politicos riled up. Even when cases are ruled according to the Constitution and judges remain impartial, politicians and pundits usually find a way to politicize issues.

2| Legislating From the Bench

Supreme Court judges are appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative branch. This allows all three branches of the government to be a check and balance on the others. However, when ideologically-driven justices impose their own views instead of attempting to determine the original public meaning of a statute or constitutional provision, it compromises the Framers’ vision of America being a government of laws and not of men.

So what is the proper role of the Supreme Court? Well, according to Reagan:

As the Framers knew, unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges. And if that happens, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite.

It's really quite simple, the justice's role is to follow the Constitution, adhering to its original intent. The Constitution is not a "living and breathing" document as the left would have you believe. The only way to make the Constitution "live and breath" is through a constitutional amendment, not through the high court. The Constitution is the solid rock on which justices must anchor their decisions, without imposing their own views and policy preferences.

Source:

¹ The Heritage Foundation

This past election wore people out, plain and simple. Hillary seemed the inevitable winner with another four years of Obama-style tyranny on the horizon and little hope of returning to the Constitution. Just when conservatives thought it couldn't get worse, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.

Not only was he a great man and legendary judicial mind, he was the last stop to hold the Constitution together when it was hanging by a thread. Scalia and Judge Clarence Thomas held down the conservative wing of the court as it leaned further and further to the left. His loss was a seismic event for the Supreme Court.

A good portion of the Republicans voted for Donald Trump solely on this issue --- filling the sizable shoes of the stalwart constitutionalist Judge Antonin Scalia. When candidate Trump put out a list of nominees, promising to choose only from among those named, it was a catalyst for many reticent voters to throw in with him. There are many reasons Trump shocked the world and won the election, but the vacancy on the Supreme Court played no small measure in him clinching the victory to stop Hillary Clinton from nominating a progressive leftist to the court.

Many names were tossed around in the weeks following Trump's election leading up to the inauguration. Even then, the #NeverTrump crowd still remained skeptical that he would actually nominate someone worthy of replacing Scalia. Then the final three names started to emerge: Thomas Hardiman, William Pryor and Neil Gorsuch.

Conservatives would have been fine with either Pryor or Gorsuch, but the fear was Trump would pick Hardiman, who was about as close to the center without falling into the left. Hardiman even served on the same court as Trump's sister. The writing appeared to be on the wall, many believing Trump was about to reveal exactly why he couldn't be trusted.

But they were wrong.

The day of the announcement, both Hardiman and Gorsuch were flown into D.C. while Pryor watched from home. With Gorsuch widely considered to be the top choice, conservatives were still holding their breath. To the shock and amazement of #NeverTrumpers, Gorsuch was the pick and Trump followed through on his promise of nominating a true conservative.

Gorsuch has ruled as an originalist and is a man of great integrity and honor, fighting valiantly to uphold the Constitution in a way the Framers intended. He ruled in favor of religious liberty in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases, ruling they did not have to provide contraception or pay for abortion. Not only is he strong in defending religious liberty, he is equally strong on the Second Amendment and is even more focused on limiting the size of government than even Scalia --- something conservatives thought they might never see on the bench again.

Whether conservative voters were ever able to pull the lever for Trump or not, he delivered and sparked a fire in those who hold the Supreme Court near and dear to their heart.

Looking to be entertained in 2017? Between Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime --- not to mention the revolution of luxury seating at movie theaters --- the vast majority of Americans find the variety and superior production value of TV and movies the perfect escape.

That's not really Senator Mike Lee's cup of tea, however. And thank goodness for it.

While the senator does enjoy a good movie, what really gets him fired up is the Constitution --- and judges like Neil Gorsuch, Trump's nominee for Supreme Court Justice whose confirmation hearings begin today. Not one of Gorsuch's written opinions as a federal judge has ever been overturned by the Supreme Court. Additionally, he writes with a clarity and wit that has great legal minds like Sen. Lee smiling and laughing.

Not only has Sen. Lee enjoyed getting to know the judge by reading opinions on the cases he's presided over, he's also gotten a real kick out them. When asked about a few favorites, Sen. Lee was thrilled to oblige, warning one might "hear angels sing" and "weep tears of hot joy" whilst reading Gorsuch's opinions.

Below are a few excerpts from Judge Gorsuch's writings that evoked such joy from a constitutionalist like Mike Lee:

No political truth is . . . stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than the separation of powers.

Think that beauty speaks volumes? Try this one on for size:

When the political branches disagree with a judicial interpretation of existing law, the Constitution prescribes the appropriate remedial process. It’s called legislation.

Judge Gorsuch really knows how to make a conservative weak in the knees. Here's one more that might make your heart flutter:

Transferring the job of saying what the law is from the judiciary to the executive unsurprisingly invites the very sort of due process (fair notice) and equal protection concerns the Framers knew would arise if the political branches intruded on judicial functions.

Mentioning the Framers in a written legal opinion? Be still Sen. Lee's heart.

Reading legal opinions may not be the chosen form of entertainment for most Americans, but count your blessings that men like Sen. Lee and Judge Gorsuch are endlessly fascinated with them. If Gorsuch's opinions don't cause you to "hear angels sing" or "weep tears of hot joy" then maybe this will: According to Sen. Lee, America is on the verge of confirming the perfect man to fill a massive, conservative void in the Supreme Court.

Watch the video for a sneak peak and answers to these newsworthy questions:

• Why did the news media used to be substantive?

• Has talk radio fallen victim to the same pitfalls that changed TV news?

• How did the overnight, minute-by-minute ratings change the game?

Watch the full episode on-demand at TheBlaze TV

So what's the deal? Was Trump Tower bugged or not? On this episode of Think Tank, Glenn dives into the timeline of events with Jason Buttrill, Head Writer/Researcher with The Glenn Beck Program, to sift through fact and fiction and get to the heart of the story.

Watch the video below for a sneak peak and answers to these covert questions:

• What Trump hire raised red flags in the intelligence community?

• Why was the second FISA warrant approved after the first was rejected?

• Was Trump Tower ultimately bugged or not?

Watch the full episode on-demand at TheBlaze TV

In a perfect world, we'd love to believe everyone has our best interests at heart --- even the Russians. But, as we all know, politics ain't perfect. So when President Trump says, "Wouldn't it be nice to be friends with Russia? Wouldn't that be a good thing?" --- a healthy dose of skepticism makes sense.

While a Pollyanna-ish world in which the U.S. gets along with the Ruskies would be interesting, there are reasons why we aren't, we cannot and should not be pals.

1 | The Ideological Divide

No matter how amazing it would be to get along with every person and culture, there are legitimate bumps in the road. There couldn't be a wider ideological gap between communism and capitalism. One equates to total government control while the other represents individual freedom. When countries are built on divergent bedrock principles, there is a natural fork in the philosophical road.

2 | Free Speech Restrictions

Freedom of speech is a God-given right and a hallmark of American democracy. Our First Amendment rights guarantee the freedom to speak our minds without fear of retribution --- even when we say something against the government. The Kremlin cracks down hard on dissent. Those who speak up are often jailed, tortured or killed. Freedom of expression is sacred to Americans, and its repression is a huge stumbling block to a potential friendship with Russia. How can we trust a government that doesn't allow its own people to speak their minds?

3 | State-Sponsored Corruption

Some believe the U.S. isn't much better than the rest of the world when it comes to corruption. While it's not perfect, nothing comes close to the hope of achieving The American Dream. While equal results are not guaranteed, hard work and ingenuity can pay off big in America. Russia, on the other hand, has turned corruption into an art form. America's free market principles are in direct conflict with Russia's pay-to-play, government-controlled society.

4 | Ivan Drago

Okay, okay --- he's fictional --- but pop culture does matter. While Ronald Reagan battled Russia in real life with Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher to end the Cold War, Ivan Drago killed an Uncle Sam-clad Apollo Creed on the big screen. Thankfully (spoiler alert), American icon Rocky Balboa avenged Creed's death, kicking Drago to the curb and restoring American dominance in the world of make-believe boxing.

5 | Domestic Abuse Tolerance

Comparatively speaking, women enjoy unprecedented rights and equality in the United States. Not so in Mother Russia. Members of the State Duma just pushed a bill for Putin's signature that would decriminalize certain cases of domestic abuse. In the absence of broken bones or a concussion, abusers would be fined without criminal charges. In the United States, domestic violence remains a criminal offense.

6 | From Russia With Love 

Ever have a friend stay over and read your diary? Yeah, that's Russia. Let's face it, Russia is notorious for spying. The Cold War era may be long gone, but Russia still tries to steal whatever intel they can from us. Take Edward Snowden, for example. Oh wait, they already did.

7 | Alexsandr Dugin

Alexsandr Dugin is a name not everyone knows --- but they should. A far right fascist sowing seeds of chaos and revolution around the world, he is a key advisor to Putin and a very dangerous man. Dugin believes Hitler was on the right track, but didn’t go far enough. He allegedly advised Putin years ago of Russia’s inability to compete with the technological and economic might of the United States. So, they decided to create revolution using “asymmetrical” weapons like WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Additionally, the actions of Dugin and Russia in Western nations appear to be fomenting revolution in the streets, inevitably with Putin or someone like him to rise from the ashes and seize control.

8 | Miracle on Ice

In 1980, the Soviet hockey team was the hands down favorite to win gold at the Winter Olympics, having won six of the seven previous Winter Games. The team consisted primarily of seasoned, professional players. An all-amateur U.S. team posed little threat, especially one that was the youngest in U.S. history. In a stunning upset, the U.S. beat Russia in a dramatic final now called the Miracle on Ice. Not only was it one of the greatest upsets in Olympic history, it was a cultural shift that had an immeasurable impact on the American psyche during the Cold War. It was one of America's greatest triumphs and the USSR's greatest defeats.

9 | Stirring the Pot

Russia is the friend that smiles to your face while causing problems behind your back. In the Middle East, Putin publicly proclaims to be anti-terrorism and anti-ISIS while backing the Assad regime and cozying up to Iran. In America, Putin denies allegations that Russia interfered in the U.S. presidential election despite evidence to the contrary. Chaos in America and chaos in the world seems to be exactly what Putin is after --- with Russia conveniently standing by to pick up the pieces.

10 | Nuclear Threat

According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia possesses 7,300 total nuclear warheads, with 1,790 being operational. The U.S. has 1,750 active strategic nuclear warheads. The exact number of Russian nuclear warheads is a state secret and therefore a matter of guesswork. Despite attempts to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both countries, Russia refuses to alter the production of its tactical nuclear weapons. In 1992, the highest-ranking Russian intelligence defector Stanislav Lunev described alleged Soviet plans for using tactical nuclear weapons for sabotage against the United States in the event of war.

11 | Sub-par Cuisine

Say you're having a dinner party and invite all the countries in the world. What would Russia bring? Unless a commie Bond villain with a penchant for expensive caviar and vodka is on the guest list, you're probably going to get stuck with some borscht, fish pie and cold potato salad. Thank goodness you invited Italy.

Thanks, but no thanks, Russia. We'll pass on the food --- and the friendship --- for now.

Toss away the labels and groupthink, and you've got a solid chance of helping a progressive believer see the light --- as long as they let reason, not emotion rule their thinking.

That's exactly what happened to Dave Rubin, host of The Rubin Report and former progressive who now calls himself a classical liberal. Rubin, who recently filmed a video with Prager U about his conversion, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday.

"I think something happened to 'progressive' in the last couple of years where it went from at least some healthy dose of true liberalism, classical liberalism and it's become just an authoritarian mess," Rubin said.

"So maybe I was a little late to the party on some of that stuff. Maybe I have just a high tolerance for some old-fashioned BS. Really, if you look back at my show for the last two years, I've spent the last two years of my life trying to get some of the good liberals to realize what's happening, and I think I succeeded at some of that. But clearly the progressives are going off the deep end."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Do you support the president going after sanctuary cities? https://t.co/UnR1fTRzzA

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 22, 2017

"It was FDR that said a 'conservative is somebody who wants to conserve all the old ways.' And because Woodrow Wilson destroyed the word progressive, [FDR] labeled the GOP conservative, and then he took the name liberal. Because back then, everybody wanted to be a liberal," Glenn said on radio Tuesday. "That's what we were from the founding of our country, classic liberals --- free, small government, rule yourself."

Labels mean nothing. Principles mean everything.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

The media may be unaware of their blatant partiality and preferential treatment toward liberal and progressive issues, but the American people are not. And, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Below is a side-by-side comparison that puts the media bias on full display. Want to know why people trust the president more than the media? Here's why:

Philly.com Headlines:

January 26, 2017 • Trump said Philly's murder rate is 'terribly increasing.' It's not.

September 16, 2016 • Why is Philly's homicide rate going up?

Salon Tweets:

June 19, 2015 • White America must answer for the Charleston church massacre

April 22, 2013 • Muslims don't need to apologize for the Tsarnaevs

Slate Headlines:

November 19, 2015 • Donald Trump Is Actually a Moderate Republican

November 25, 2015 • Donald Trump Is a Fascist

Philly.com Headlines:

July 19, 2016 • Melania Trump's RNC fashion: A scary statement

July 28, 2016 • DNC Fashion: Hillary Clinton looked presidential in an all-white pantsuit

CNN Headlines:

October 19, 2016 • No, the presidential election can't be hacked

December 10, 2016 • Where's the outrage over Russia's hack of the US election?

People are getting sick and tired of how the media covers President Trump, including Glenn.

"I don't expect Donald Trump to change his ways. That's who he is, so he's not going to," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program.

Glenn then directed his audience's attention to an interview NBC's Katy Tur had with Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL). Tur questioned the Trump administration's apparent friendliness with Russia, clearly ignorant of Barack Obama's history of friendly relations with Russia:

There's also a number of people that were at least in his administration, until last week, who were friendly with Russia. General Mike Flynn, being one of them. His former campaign CEO was Paul Manafort, who's got ties to Russia. His Secretary of State was given the medal of friendship by Russia. So you say there's a lot of conservatives who are going to push back on Russia, but I see a lot of folks within Donald Trump's administration who have a friendlier view of Russia than maybe past administrations did.

Rooney shot back: "Well, I think it was Obama that leaned over to Putin and said, 'I'll have a little bit more flexibility to give you what you want after the reelection.'"

Then it got awkward.

"I'm sorry," Tur said. "I don't know what you're referring to, Congressman."

While Rooney was slightly off in his retelling --- it was Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Obama was speaking to, not Putin --- a hot mic at a Nuclear Security Summit captured Obama promising the Russian president more "flexibility" following his reelection.

"The problem is the left just didn't take those words seriously because they were his guy," Glenn said. "That's the problem."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

In light of Milo Yiannopoulos' disturbing comments about underage boys, was CPAC right to rescind the invitation? https://t.co/CfIJ8t1rey

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 21, 2017

With President Donald Trump dominating news cycle 24/7, many Americans are happy to forget politics and spend President's Day relaxing. It has become just another three-day weekend to go to the movies or take the family on a quick vacation. Not for Utah Senator Mike Lee. In a recent phone interview, Lee shared his feelings on this particular holiday --- President's Day.

Strong Roots

From his childhood, Lee developed a deep reverence for the Constitution, love for the Republic and respect for the office that continues to this day.

"As a Latter-day Saint (Mormon), I was taught by my parents that these were wise men raised up by God for that very purpose," Lee said. "Those involved in writing the Constitution --- not to say every word was inspired or infallible or their words were flawless, but on the whole --- the government they devised was absolutely brilliant. And it is a document that to the extent that we follow it, it has led to the greatest civilization the world has ever known."

Earliest President's Day Memory

While attending various Lincoln Day dinners in Utah and around the country, Lee's thoughts drifted back to his kindergarten days and the lessons he learned about the Constitution and two of our greatest presidents.

"My teacher made us a cake the Friday before President's Day, and it was decorated with this elaborate frosting depicting the faces of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington," Lee said.

His teacher taught Lee and the other children about the sacrifices these two presidents and their families made for a great cause and the Constitution.

"I always reflect back on that on President's Day," he said.

Respect for the Office

Throughout Donald Trump's presidential run, the Utah senator made no secret of his opposition to Trump's candidacy. But now, because of his deep respect for the office, Lee is looking for common ground with the President.

"There's nothing that will weigh a person down faster, more relentlessly than contempt for another human being," Lee said. "When you respect people who hold that office, even when you disagree, it actually makes life better. It causes you to look for ways to be constructive."

Favorite President

Because of his reputation as one of the most conservative members of the Senate, you might think Lee's favorite president would be someone like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, right? Possibly Ronald Reagan?

Nope.

While he agreed all three of those belong on Mount Rushmore, leave it to Sen. Lee to choose one of the more obscure and widely ignored presidents of the last century to add to the group.

"Calvin Coolidge is not treated fairly by historians --- not even remotely," Lee said. "He's not treated well, perhaps in part because of his political philosophy, but he is the type of president we should always aspire to have."

One of the things Lee said he admired most about Calvin Coolidge was his deep respect for the Constitution.

"He was going to recognize limited power for the federal government at a time when it was rapidly becoming more fashionable to advocate for more government," Lee said.

Coolidge fought back against powerful interests within his own party advocating for bigger government, for higher taxes. He even went to war with large entities like the Chamber of Commerce who wanted higher taxes, while Coolidge wanted to reduce the tax rate. They fought him on this aggressively, but he won and convinced Congress to lower the rate.

"As he did that, even though he was mocked and ridiculed at every turn for taking this position, he was ultimately proven right," Lee said. "As they reduced the tax rate, the economy flourished and they actually brought in more revenue."

Coolidge was not only fiscally conservative but also knew the power in leaving things well enough alone. Sen. Lee referred to Amity Shlaes biography of Coolidge and his belief that government could cause harm with poor legislation.

No-Good Government Solutions

"Once a bad law is put in place it takes on a life of its own, it has its own inertia. It's there and it will continue, absent some other action," Lee said. "So it can be very hard to get rid of a bad law."

Ronald Reagan was famously quoted as saying: "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Reagan would be spinning in his grave to know how much faith has been put in those people who are "here to help." Lee discussed the type of president we need to fix that problem.

"In an era over the last hundred years or so, we've seen the rise of the progressive movement in America. We've seen the American people put an almost religious-like faith in the government," Lee said. "Coolidge stands out in open defiance against that both for constitutional reasons and policy reasons that had to do with the need to protect the common man."

Optimism About Trump's Presidency

Now that Trump has been elected, his apparent reverence for the office has Lee optimistic.

"I'm hopelessly optimistic," Lee said with a chuckle. "I always believe that someone who believes in that kind of approach is willing to stick with it even though it's difficult, is willing to remain consistent with it, needs to be president and will be president. Our current president has just taken office and he could decide to be that type of president and I would be thrilled if he did."

Conservatives are often heard pining for the next Ronald Reagan, but according to Sen. Lee, America might be even better off with another Calvin Coolidge. Whether Trump can be that type of president remains to be seen. But we can all take a page from what a young Mike Lee learned back in kindergarten: Respect the office, reinforce the fabric of our great nation and be optimistic.

Elected in 2010 as Utah's 16th Senator, Mike Lee has spent his career defending the basic liberties of Americans and Utahns as a tireless advocate for our founding constitutional principles.

Great leaders inspire confidence and steady our resolve --- in good times and bad. Here are five inspirational speeches in presidential history that delivered the right words at the right time.

1 | George Washington: Farewell Address, 1796

Historians have discovered that Washington dated the draft of his address to coincide with the nine-year anniversary of the adoption of the first draft of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. Scholars agree that Alexander Hamilton, former aide to Washington during the Revolutionary War and the first U.S. secretary of the treasury, wrote much of the address. Washington was greatly influenced by his federalist cohort Hamilton throughout their professional relationship, much to the frustration of the Republican members of his government, particularly Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It was Madison who had helped pen a farewell draft for Washington at the end of his first term, which Hamilton had initially used as a template for the final farewell address. That version was ultimately tossed aside, however, in favor of one drafted from scratch by Hamilton. He and Washington spent the summer of 1796 finalizing the speech, which was delivered for printing in September.¹

READ THE FULL ADDRESS

2 | Abraham Lincoln: The Gettysburg Address • 1863

President Lincoln, dignitaries and thousands of onlookers listened intently while Edward Everett, the keynote speaker at Gettysburg, addressed the crowd for two hours. Adhering to the request of his host David Wills to give “a few appropriate remarks,” Lincoln arose from his seat on the platform and spoke for only two minutes, delivering some of the memorable words in U.S. history.²

READ THE FULL ADDRESS

3 | John F. Kennedy: Man on the Moon Speech • 1961

On April 12, 1961, the Soviets, who occupied much of eastern Europe and had nuclear missiles aimed at America, launched the first man into space, Yuri Gagarin. Then the Communist propagandists proclaimed that Gagarin had looked around the cosmos and seen no God. In actuality, Gagarin, a devout Russian Orthodox Christian, never made the claims the officially atheist Soviet government attributed to him. However, the Soviets used the successful space flight for the maximum propaganda purposes. Communist Party Chairman Nikita Khrushchev touted the Soviet triumph as prime evidence of Communism’s superiority. On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy spoke in Houston, declaring that America would go to the moon. And then we did. The Soviets never made it.³

4 | Ronald Reagan: Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster Speech • 1986

Images from Jan. 28, 1986, are seared into the memories of former schoolchildren, teachers and parents — the Challenger space shuttle, meant to carry schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe into orbit, reduced to a snaky tunnel of smoke in the sky near Cape Canaveral. In the years that followed, a lot would come out about a disaster watched in countless classrooms across the nation: about faulty O-rings, about dangerously cold temperatures, and about how five crewmen, an engineer and a New Hampshire teacher meant to represent NASA in its finest hour became the space agency’s first in-flight fatalities.

But even before the smoke cleared, one man just as shocked as everyone else by the tragedy — President Ronald Reagan — had the unenviable job of explaining it to the country. On a day, no less, that he was to be the center of a ritual marked on every commander in chief’s calendar since the Woodrow Wilson administration: the State of the Union address. There was no question: The State of the Union, for the first time in modern history, would be scuttled. But what was there to say in the face of such shock and horror?⁴

5 | Ronald Reagan: Brandenburg Gate Speech • 1987

On June 12, 1987, in a dramatic speech set against the backdrop of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate, President Ronald Reagan delivered a challenge to Soviet leader Mikahil Gorbachev: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." The speech, delivered about 100 yards from the Berlin Wall, marked Reagan's most prominent call for the reunification of East and West Berlin, and was considered a bold challenge to Gorbachev to prove he was serious about reforming Soviet governmental policies. Ultimately, it also signaled a hallmark moment in Reagan's presidency.⁵

Sources:

¹History.com

²GettysburgAddress.CivilWar.org

³BeliefNet.com

⁴The Washington Post

⁵CBS News

UPDATE: American Conservative Union Chairman Matt Schlapp announced Monday that Milo Yiannopoulos’s invitation to speak at the CPAC has been rescinded.

What do you think about Milo Yiannopoulos being a keynote speaker at CPAC? https://t.co/qteNGWtQY2

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 20, 2017

"In general when I have conversations, I react to the way the question is asked. You know, I think so much of what people say is not being said, it's the way they're saying it," Patel said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

RELATED: Kindly Unfriend Me to My Face

Riaz, who was recently unfriended by a longtime friend on Facebook, shared great advice on how to handle relationships in our current combative political climate: Don't judge people based solely on what's happening now.

"Examine today, and the friendships and the history of people start from the past, work your way forward," he advised.

How would you describe the @POTUS's marathon press conference? https://t.co/0PQp4vUk6h

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 17, 2017

Chad Robichaux knows adversity --- and how to overcome it. In a powerful testimony, Robichaux shared his story in studio with Glenn on Thursday, recounting how he shot and killed a man as a police officer, returned from the War on Terror in Afghanistan with PTSD, but most importantly, brought his marriage and life back from the brink. As a way to help other vets, Robichaux and his wife began Mighty Oaks Warrior Programs to help other vets and families suffering from PTSD.

"Mercury One just gave a $25,000 donation yesterday to Mighty Oaks Foundation, and I want you to be involved. If you care about our servicemen and this issue, this is a great way to get involved," Glenn said.

Mighty Oaks Warrior Programs serves the brokenhearted by providing intensive peer-based discipleship through a series of programs, outpost meetings and speaking events.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Editor's Note: The following is a guest post by Adam Taggart with PeakProsperity.com.

To make sense of the fast-developing situation at California's Oroville Dam, Chris Martenson spoke today with Scott Cahill, an expert with 40 years of experience on large construction and development projects on hundreds of dams, many of them earthen embankment ones like the dam at Oroville. Scott has authored numerous white papers on dam management, he's a FEMA trainer for dam safety, and is the current owner of Watershed Services of Ohio which specializes in dam projects across the eastern US. Suffice it to say, he knows his "dam" stuff.

Scott and Chris talk about the physics behind the failing spillways at Oroville, as well as the probability of a wider-scale failure from here as days of rain return to California.

Sadly, Scott explains how this crisis was easily avoidable. The points of failure in Oroville's infrastructure were identified many years ago, and the cost of making the needed repairs was quite small -- around $6 million. But for short-sighted reasons, the repairs were not funded; and now the bill to fix the resultant damage will likely be on the order of magnitude of over $200 million. Which does not factor in the environmental carnage being caused by flooding downstream ecosystems with high-sediment water or the costs involved with evacuating the 200,000 residents living nearby the dam.

Oh, and of course, these projected costs will skyrocket higher should a catastrophic failure occur; which can't be lightly dismissed at this point.

Scott explains to Chris how this crisis is indicative of the neglect rampant across the entire US national dam system. Oroville is one of the best-managed and maintained dams in the country. If it still suffered from too much deferred maintenance, imagine how vulnerable the country's thousands and thousands of smaller dams are. Trillions of dollars are needed to bring our national dams up to satisfactory status. How much else is needed for the country's roads, railsystems, waterworks, power grids, etc?

Both Chris and Scott agree that individuals need to shoulder more personal responsibility for their safety than the government advises, as -- let's face it -- the government rarely admits there's a problem until it's an emergency. Katrina, Fukushima, Oroville -- we need to critically parse the information being given to us when the government and media say 'it's all under control', as well as have emergency preparations already in place should swift action be necessary.

Listen to the full interview below:

Do you support U.S. ground troops in Syria? https://t.co/ba1qOksgno

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 16, 2017

Harry Dent, author of The Sale of a Lifetime: How the Great Bubble Burst of 2017-2019 Can Make You Rich, joined Glenn on radio today to talk about the economic bubble we're in --- and how the government is only prolonging and worsening the inevitable.

"Governments are trying to prevent the obvious: A natural generational down cycle, like we saw from 1969 to '82 and from 1930 to '42. This happens every 40 years, and we shouldn't prevent these cycles. We should let them happen and clear the decks of debt and excess capacity and bad companies to get efficient and prepare for the next generational boom. And we're not doing that," Dent said.

The government's answer has been to interfere with endless quantitative easing, infrastructure spending and globalization --- but it's all starting to fail.

"Globalization has peaked. The second big surge from World War II into recently has peaked. Globalization has been a great productivity tool --- better trade, all this stuff --- but it has gone too far," Dent said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union which hosts the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, joined Glenn on radio today to talk about CPAC 2017, the difference between nationalism and conservatism, and the mind-boggling shift with liberals newfound love for the Constitution and federalism.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

On a scale of chile peppers, how heated and mad will you be if the GOP doesn't repeal Obamacare? https://t.co/kANgfM1Qev

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) February 15, 2017

Some people will do or say anything for power, but do they really believe what they're preaching? On this episode of Think Tank, Glenn and the crew talk about Steve Bannon, the alt-right movement and the spookiest dude of all --- Aleksandr Dugin. What is the alt-right and what's endgame?

Watch the video below for a sneak peak and answers to these concerning questions:

• What is Steve Bannon's backstory?

• Do those stirring up the far right actually believe in what they are saying?

• Should we worry about why Steve King met with Marine Le Pen of France?

Watch the full episode on-demand at TheBlaze TV

The government is absolutely brilliant when it comes to making dramatic and life-altering laws sound so boring you'd rather get a root canal than figure out what they really mean. So it's no surprise people's eyes glaze over at the mention of "civil asset forfeiture." Call it something else --- legalized governmental theft --- and they just might perk up.

Don't think it exists? Just ask Lyndon McClellan, whose bank account of more than $107,000 was seized by the IRS in 2014. As the owner of a convenience store in Fairmont, North Carolina for over a decade, the IRS deemed McClellan's frequent cash deposits evidence of criminal activity, and a good enough reason to take his money --- even though he was never charged with a crime.

If it could happen to McClellan, it could happen to anyone.

Here are some facts you should know about how the government lawfully takes property from innocent citizens.

What Is It?

According to the Institute for Justice, civil asset forfeiture is the process by which the government takes and sells someone's property without ever convicting them with a crime, and "one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today."

They go on to describe how these cases proceed under the "legal fiction" that cash, cars or homes can be "guilty," leading to some bizarre case names such as, "United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Mass." Because these cases are technically civil actions, property owners are not considered eligible to receive standard protections merited to criminal defendants, such as an attorney and a trial.

How Did It Start?

The roots of civil asset forfeiture laws date back to the 1600s in England, eventually making their way into colonial law, which earns them one of the longest running legal legacies on record. Popularized during the prohibition era and used sparingly in the 20's and 30's, these laws temporarily fell out of favor until the drug wars of the 1980s.

What's the Argument for Keeping It?

Some people --- particularly in law enforcement --- love the program and will fight tooth and nail to not only keep it but expand its use even further. Those in favor see it as a way to stop drug cartels and limit the ability of drug dealers and "bad hombres" to engage in illicit business.

The Federalist Society makes these points in favor of the law:

The government also uses forfeiture to take the profit out of crime, and to return property to victims. No one has the right to retain the money gained from bribery, extortion, illegal gambling, or drug dealing. With the forfeiture laws, we can separate the criminal from his profits --- and any property traceable to it --- thus removing the incentive others may have to commit similar crimes tomorrow. And if the crime is one that has victims --- like carjacking or fraud --- we can use the forfeiture laws to recover the property and restore it to the owners far more effectively than the restitution statutes permit.

Does the President Support It?

While addressing a group of sheriffs earlier this month, President Donald Trump appeared to fully endorse civil asset forfeiture. After one sheriff opined about a troublesome bill seeking to abolish the practice in Texas, Trump demanded the name of the person introducing the bill and said, "We'll destroy his career."

In all fairness to President Trump, he did not appear to have prior knowledge about the program. If you watch this video, Trump seemed to ask plenty of questions with the intent gaining a greater understanding, but he only got the law enforcement's version.

What's the Argument for Abolishing It?

This argument seems simple --- the government should have to prove wrongdoing before being able to seize someone's money, car, home or any other asset. The Foundation for Economic Education made this point:

In poor nations, a corrupt cop will stop motorists to shake them down for pocket change. In the United States, we’ve legalized a bigger version of that sleazy behavior.

Who Is Opposing It?

Some politicians, including Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), have taken a strong stance against civil asset forfeiture. After Trump's statements, Amash came out with the following response:

President Trump today endorsed stealing property from law-abiding Americans who haven't been charged with --- let alone convicted of --- any crime. He also said, "We'll destroy his career," about a conservative Texas state senator who opposes this unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture.

My staff and I will work to introduce a bill to end civil asset forfeiture. I always will stand up for limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty. And I always will keep my oath to support and defend the Constitution.

What Is Glenn's Point of View?

Glenn shared his thoughts on the civil asset forfeiture on his February 13, 2017 radio program, in light of news coverage of President Trump's meeting with sheriffs. Below are excerpts from his monologue:

Civil asset forfeiture --- we talked about that last week. But we didn't talk about what that was about. We've been very concerned. And if you are a conservative and you're suddenly not concerned about this, ask yourself why.

Because we were all very concerned when this was happening under Barack Obama. And no matter what anybody tells you, it is not good. If we don't put a fence around this and make sure that it is only used for what it was meant to be used for.

And, quite honestly, I have a problem with it, even the way it was meant to be used.

It means that you don't even have to be charged with a crime, let alone found guilty. Charged with a crime. And the police can come in and take your stuff, seize it, claim it to be theirs, sell it, use the money any way they want, and you have no recourse.

Unfortunately, it's happening to regular people.

If it happens to one person, it needs to be guarded against. And it's happened to several people. I'm going to give you some examples coming up in a second. But it's happened to several people. And it has to be guarded against and stopped.

Listen to more from Glenn's radio program here.