Owner of a Lonely Heart: Pat Laments Foreigner Being Overlooked AGAIN for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Let's just get this out of the way. Pat Gray is a hardcore Foreigner fan. Foreigner is the best freaking band ever (well, Foreigner and Boston). So any list of inductees into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame that doesn't include Foreigner will fall short in his eyes.

"I'm sure they're all incredibly deserving --- and certainly more deserving than Foreigner who can't even be nominated because they only had about 30 Top 40 hits. They only had, I don't know, 15 or 20 top ten hits. They only sold about 80 million records worldwide. They've only been icons for about 40 years," Pat said.

Who made the final cut for 2017? In the performance category, Joan Baez, Electric Light Orchestra (ELO), Journey, Pearl Jam, Tupac Shakur and Yes will be inducted.

"Joan Baez? Joan Baez?! Did you see the people's vote on the website for a month or two leading up to the actual decision? Joan Baez was at the bottom of that list, so the people's vote means nothing," Pat said.

Evidently, a 1960s protest song goes a long way, baby.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 3 for answers to these questions:

• Does Pat like any of the performers on the 2017 list?

• Does Rolling Stone magazine have a crush on Yes?

• Why did George Washington University remove US History as a requirement for history majors?

• How did a wild and crazy guy like Steve Martin become a target of feminists?

• Should Brent Musburger retire?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

PAT: In for Glenn. He just threw his back out about an hour ago. Technology is awesome. But what are the drawbacks? What are we becoming? We'll talk about some of the latest innovations to be in every home as we have been today.

We've been talking about your New Year's resolutions. We also want to get into Black Lives Matter. Do they?

We don't hear much about the black lives being lost in Chicago, do we? And what a year, 2016 was for murders in Chicago. Just unbelievable.

Also, the Russians influencing the election. Nah, that didn't happen. Had nothing to do with Russians, according to Julian Assange. And we certainly believe him.

JEFFY: Oh.

PAT: Also, George Washington University has apparently removed US history from their curriculum. We'll start there, right now.

(music)

PAT: Yeah, Glenn just hurt his back pretty badly. Hopefully he'll be back on tomorrow, maybe I don't know, from a hospital bed or his own bed.

JEFFY: No kidding.

PAT: We'll see. 888-727-BECK. It's Pat Gray and Jeffy in. Stu is also sick today. So not a great start for those guys in 2017.

JEFFY: No doubt.

PAT: So -- the other thing that we were going to mention -- you just mentioned right before we came on. Apparently the Rock Hall of Fame --

JEFFY: Oh.

PAT: Has decided who is going into the Hall of Fame for this year.

JEFFY: Yes, they have. And we were pretty close -- we were pretty close when we talked about who they were going to pick.

PAT: Tell us the nominations. Do you have that in front of you?

JEFFY: I just have who they picked. But we can certainly get it.

PAT: Who is actually going in this year? I'm sure they're all incredibly deserving, and certainly more deserving than Foreigner who can't even be nominated because they only had about 30 Top 40 hits. They only had, I don't know, 15 or 20 top ten hits. They only sold about 80 million records worldwide.

They've only been icons for about 40 years. You wouldn't want them in the Rock Hall of Fame. But you do want --

JEFFY: But -- Joan Baez.

PAT: Oh, my gosh. Joan Baez? Joan Baez! Did you see the people -- they always do the people's vote on the website for a month or two leading up to the actual decision.

JEFFY: I did. Right.

PAT: And Joan Baez was at the bottom of that list, so the people's vote means nothing.

JEFFY: We talked about it either here or on Pat and Stu. We did both. We talked about who we thought they would pick. And, you know, obviously who was in the running.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: And we were pretty close. We were pretty close --

PAT: So -- because I think we said Joan Baez would be one of them. Because all you have to do is sing a protest song in the 1960s and you're in.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah -- and coffeehouse queen of that.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

JEFFY: ELO. Electric Light Orchestra.

PAT: Okay. That's a good one.

JEFFY: That's worthy. That's worthy.

PAT: Absolutely belong. Should have been in a long time ago.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: So ELO. Joan Baez.

JEFFY: Journey.

PAT: Journey, of course, had to get in. I mean, they deserve it.

JEFFY: Yeah. I know. Pearl Jam. We said there's no way they're not going to --

PAT: No way.

JEFFY: It's iconic.

PAT: The other thing besides protest songs is singing about how you were abused as a child.

JEFFY: It's an era. Yeah, it's an era. That's what they represent, right?

PAT: I hate my parents. I've never liked them. I got beaten when I was a kid. And you're in. You're in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So who else?

So Joan Baez, ELO, Journey, Pearl Jam.

JEFFY: And, of course, Tupac Shakur. Who else do you think of in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, other than Tupac Shakur? Now, Tupac was not at the bottom, but he was down there.

PAT: Yeah, he was very near the bottom, with Joan Baez.

JEFFY: He was down there. Yes.

PAT: Unbelievable.

JEFFY: You knew there was no way they weren't going to put Tupac in. No way.

PAT: And he's not rock. But they don't -- they don't go back that for some reason. The Rock Hall of Fame really has very little to do with rock 'n' roll because a lot of rap artists are in. R&B. You know, so -- it's frustrating. It's really frustrating.

JEFFY: And finally we have --

PAT: Oh, there's another one?

JEFFY: Finally we have -- yes, of course. Of course.

PAT: Because they're a Rolling Stone favorite, right? If the Rolling Stone magazine liked the band, there's a good chance they're going to get in.

Name -- other than Owner of a Lonely Heart and Roundabout, name a Yes song.

JEFFY: Are you talking to me?

PAT: Yeah, I'm talking to you.

JEFFY: I can't.

PAT: Yeah.

(laughter)

No one can.

JEFFY: I want to. I want to look it up bad and give you one, but I can't.

I didn't even -- I would have just said Roundabout. Owner of a Lonely Heart, yeah, I know it, but --

PAT: Which was bigger than Roundabout. I mean, that was their biggest hit.

JEFFY: Yeah, I know. But Roundabout was longer, so you played it to take a longer break.

PAT: Yes, you did. If you ever had to go to the bathroom and you worked at a classic rock station, you go Roundabout. Because it was about seven and a half, eight minutes.

JEFFY: I'll be your roundabout, 80,000 times, you were good. You were good. No problem.

PAT: Roundabout and Stairway to Heaven were the two.

888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK.

George Washington University in Washington, DC, has decided they're giving students more flexibility.

JEFFY: Isn't that nice?

PAT: They're going to give them more flexibility. That means freeing them up from taking required courses like US history.

JEFFY: Why?

PAT: Even if they're history majors, they don't have to take US history.

JEFFY: Come on now. That's agonizing. We should -- any government money they get should be taken from them immediately.

PAT: You xenophobic bastard. What are you talking about?

JEFFY: Should be taken from them immediately. I don't care if you tell me we don't like the US history they're teaching. I don't care. There should be US history. That should be a mandatory thing. It should absolutely be required.

PAT: Especially -- especially if you're a history major.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: How do you not study US history?

According to The College Fix, the new requirements allow for students to take an optional course in previously required courses or a high score on a placement test to opt out of the requirement.

JEFFY: Oh, well, good.

PAT: But there's no more mandate to take US history.

JEFFY: They changed a couple other things too. I will say they eliminated the requirements for US North American and European history, which, you know, even if you're a history major is absolutely wrong, as well as foreign language requirement. Those -- that's not required now for a major. So you could get -- you could get your US history major without that history. Big deal. Who cares.

PAT: And the reason that they're saying they decided to do this is because they want to recruit new students to better reflect a globalizing world. Because, Jeffy, we're citizens of the globe now.

JEFFY: Are we?

PAT: We're not US citizens anymore. We're citizens of the globe.

Citizens of this planet. You know, and --

JEFFY: That's good.

PAT: So this is a beautiful thing. They can take world history instead, European history. We are just -- we're begging for trouble.

JEFFY: Every dime.

PAT: Begging for trouble.

JEFFY: If they take a dime of taxpayer's money, it should be taken from them right now. That's fine. You can do what you want. I don't care what they do.

PAT: Right. Right. But you get no taxpayer money.

JEFFY: Come on now. You're a United States university. United States of America university.

PAT: I'm just really worried about what's going on in our colleges. Because even at the so-called conservative-leaning schools, they're teaching our kids garbage. Garbage.

JEFFY: Not really. Not really.

PAT: I was talking to my son over the Christmas break about what he was learning from his professors in history. And he said they hate Israel, for one thing.

JEFFY: Of course.

PAT: And the slant on Israeli/Palestinian relations was all Palestinian-leaning.

JEFFY: Of course.

PAT: And he said they didn't come right out and say that Israel is in the wrong, but everything they taught led you to believe --

JEFFY: And why not?

PAT: -- that Israel was in the wrong.

JEFFY: We got the United Nations. Our country is, we don't want to vote. We know what's going to happen. We got John Kerry telling us that they're wrong and bad.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: Obama has been telling us they want -- well, they should go back to the 68 borders, and Israel is in the wrong. Why wouldn't you be that way?

PAT: And I told him, you know, do they even talk about the fact that the Palestinians had their shot at a homeland when the partition was made in 1948? When the UN gave birth to Israel, they also gave birth to a Palestinian state. And the Palestinians rejected it and instead went to war with their Arab brethren against Israel in 1948. What? What?

JEFFY: What?

PAT: That -- they never talked about it. They never talked about it! How is that possible?

And then they went to war again in 1956. And again in 1967. And again in 1973. And 1981. And so on and so forth through history.

And the Israelis had had enough by '67 and final kept the West Bank. Because the Palestinians have always been, "That's not enough." I mean, I don't know what enough is for them.

PAT: Well, enough is getting rid of Israel. It means getting rid of Israel.

JEFFY: And unless we do that, that's not enough.

PAT: That's right. And really, you have the UN going along with that. And now apparently you've got the Obama administration going along with the UN, in these resolutions.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: And Israel is pretty fed up with it. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them.

So what chance do our kids have when they're hearing all of this garbage in college and these are the people that we've set up as the authority figures. This is where you're going to go and learn all these great things to prepare you for life. And then they're hearing all of this stuff. And now they're not getting any US history on top of that, at places like George Washington University.

JEFFY: And that actually is the argument for not having to get the US history, right? You're hoping that maybe the history they get will be correct and not --

PAT: But it's not going to be.

JEFFY: No, it's not no.

PAT: It's going to be a worldview. It's going to be an anti-American view. And it's hard to overcome that slant. And so if your kids are attending universities, I'd -- I recommend talking to them about what they're learning from their professors so that you can at least provide them with the other side of it.

JEFFY: It may take a while.

PAT: And as I told Sean, I don't mind if they teach you both sides. I don't care about it at all. In fact, that's the way you should -- let them decide. Just teach them both sides of the issue. Don't slant it one ware way or the other.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: He said one of the things he liked best about one of his professors was, one day he would come in with one side of an argument, and he would argue the other side while the students came at him with questions.

JEFFY: Nice.

PAT: And then the next day, he would argue the other side of it and have them respond accordingly. And I thought, "Well, yeah. That's what you should be doing."

JEFFY: Absolutely.

PAT: Let them decide. But -- because otherwise, it's indoctrination.

JEFFY: Well...

PAT: And sadly, that's what's happening.

JEFFY: Yeah, absolutely.

PAT: 888-727-BECK. It's Pat and Jeffy in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program.

(OUT AT 10:20AM)

PAT: Pat and Jeffy in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. He hurt his back. Threw it out again. And so hopefully he'll be back tomorrow.

888-727-BECK. Some people under fire for comments that they've made. Steve Martin -- this weird controversy.

JEFFY: Unbelievable.

PAT: Is one of the dumbest I've ever seen in my life.

JEFFY: And he deleted it.

PAT: Well, of course. Yeah, especially if these lefties in Hollywood -- they don't understand the insanity of the left because they're part of it. So the least little criticism they get, okay. I'm sorry. He actually said -- and I can't remember the exact tweet. But he tweeted out after Carrie Fisher died that she was beautiful, and she was also smart and talented. Something to that effect, right? Because he mentioned her intelligence matching her beauty. Something to that effect.

Well, the feminists went crazy. How dare you mention a person's appearance after they've died!

What?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

PAT: When did that become a thing, that I can't do that. Are you kidding me? So if Brad Pitt dies, no woman better ever mention --

JEFFY: Not one word.

PAT: -- that he was good-looking, or we will hit the roof.

(laughter)

That is asinine. Do you have the tweet? It was innocuous. It wasn't offensive in any way. And yet, because he got so much flak, he deleted it. What was the original tweet?

JEFFY: From @SteveMartin. Think she was -- oh, let's see. These are the ones that are against him.

His tweet: When I was a young man, Carrie Fisher was the most beautiful creature I had ever seen. She turned out to be witty and bright as well.

PAT: Witty and bright as well.

JEFFY: How horrific. Steve Martin.

PAT: You'd think he committed genocide on women or something.

JEFFY: I think she aspired to something higher than just being pretty. How do you want to be remembered?

These are some of the ones -- the people that were so mad at him. Unbelievable.

PAT: Can -- can her looks not be one of the things you remember?

JEFFY: No.

PAT: Okay. I guess not.

JEFFY: No!

PAT: Is it really an insult -- if Carrie Fisher were alive today, would she say that's an insult?

JEFFY: Absolutely not.

PAT: How dare you say I was beautiful! How dare you!

JEFFY: And witty. I am not. I am not witty.

PAT: I am the dullest person going. I am so dull, you couldn't get butter with me! That's how dull I am!

(laughter)

Also under fire right now -- and maybe rightly so, and I've defended him in the past, Brent Musburger shouldn't broadcast anymore.

JEFFY: Oh, no. What did he do? I don't know this.

PAT: He broadcast the Sugar Bowl last night with Oklahoma. Auburn.

JEFFY: Of course. Yeah, they still have Brent hang around for one more. He's one of the sportscaster icons.

PAT: I mean, he's a good sportscaster whose time has maybe passed him by.

JEFFY: Well, that was a while ago. But they still -- they still throw him the bone for a day or two. He's been around for long enough. He's got the name recognition.

PAT: Yes, he does.

But last night, he was talking about Joe Mixon, who in public punched a woman in the face. And the video was released recently, and, you know, it's horrific. It was a couple years ago when it happened. And he got suspended for all of the 2014 season.

So then he came back, and Musburger originally said it was troubling, very troubling to see. We've talked to the coaches, and they all swear this young man is doing fine. Like I said, Oklahoma thought he might even transfer, but he sat out the suspension, reinstated.

And, folks, he's just one of the best. And let's hope, given a second chance by Bob Stoops and Oklahoma, let's hope that this young man makes the most of his chance and goes on to have a career in the National Football League.

Now, as soon as he said that, I thought, "Oh, you don't know what you just said."

JEFFY: Brent.

PAT: That is not going to go over well.

JEFFY: No, it is not.

PAT: And it didn't. And so they're getting all kinds of tweet. And they're getting all kinds of social media backlash. And people are going crazy about it.

JEFFY: I bet. I bet.

PAT: And so later in the game, he came out again and said, "Apparently some people were upset when I wished this young man well at the next level. Let me make something perfectly clear: What he did with that young lady was brutal, uncalled for. He's apologized. He was tearful." So --

JEFFY: I know. But let's -- in Brent's -- go ahead. Finish what he said to say.

PAT: -- he got a second chance. He got a second chance from Bob Stoops. I happen to pull for people with second chances. Okay? Let me make it absolutely clear that I hope he has a wonderful career and he teaches people with that brutal, violent video, okay?

No, that's not okay!

JEFFY: In today's world -- in today's world --

PAT: You can't say that.

JEFFY: -- in today's world, you can't even live. You can't live. You can't walk down the street.

PAT: Nope.

JEFFY: You can't go out of your house if you're guilty of hitting a woman.

PAT: Well, that's true.

JEFFY: If you're a sports -- any kind of sports, any kind of athlete.

PAT: Yep. Uh-huh.

JEFFY: And there's video of it.

PAT: Well, I will say this, you certainly can't be celebrated, right?

JEFFY: No. No. You cannot. No.

PAT: Musburger should have left it alone. If I were them --

JEFFY: Great run by -- how dare you. He hit his woman. You can't --

PAT: I wouldn't have even brought up the whole incident. It's in the past. You should just leave it alone. You don't wish him well when you're talking about in the same breath, he beat some woman in the face.

JEFFY: He knows better than that. He used to -- you're right though. It may be time. It may be time.

PAT: It just may be time, Brent.

JEFFY: Brent, call it in.

(OUT AT 10:32AM)

PAT: Pat and Jeffy in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. Threw his back out earlier. Hopefully he'll be back with us tomorrow. 888-727-BECK.

We were talking about Brent Musburger's problems last night. And this kind of follows up from, was it last year or the year before? It was a couple years ago now, right? Where he was talking about A.J. McCarron's girlfriend during the Sugar Bowl. Was it the Sugar Bowl? I don't know. One of the bowl games.

JEFFY: It was one of the --

PAT: Some Alabama game. Yeah, it was an Alabama game.

JEFFY: It might have been the SECC championship.

PAT: Possibly. But here's what he said then, which was somewhat interesting.

BRENT: Auburn. I want to admit that. But Miss Alabama -- and that's A.J. McCarron's girlfriend. Okay?

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

BRENT: And right there on the right is Dee Dee Bonner. That's A.J.'s mother. Wow, I'm telling you, you quarterbacks, you get all the good-looking women.

JEFFY: Yeah, he sees the mom.

BRENT: What a beautiful woman. Wow.

VOICE: A.J. is doing some things right --

BRENT: So if you're a youngster in Alabama, start getting a football out and throwing it around the backyard.

(laughter)

JEFFY: You want to be a quarterback.

PAT: He got all kinds of flak for that.

JEFFY: He sure did.

PAT: I didn't think it was that bad.

JEFFY: Boy, social media, Twitter went crazy.

PAT: It went nuts. Because he's talking about, again, a beautiful woman. And I guess that's --

JEFFY: You're not allowed.

PAT: That's verboten. That's forbidden. You can't talk about --

JEFFY: You can't talk about the girl. You can't talk about the mother. You can't talk about the -- nothing.

PAT: And people made a big deal. That's a 72-year-old man talking about a 21-year-old girl.

He's not asking her for a date. He didn't try to sleep with her.

JEFFY: He's saying A.J. made a great choice.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: And, wow, there's her mother.

PAT: And she's attractive too.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Terrible? No.

JEFFY: And then he's got Herbstreit next to him, who was a quarterback, by the way, when he said, "Wow, you quarterbacks..."

PAT: Yes. True, right.

And last night was a little different deal. It was a lot different.

Last night, he deserved some criticism. And it wasn't just the Joe Mixon thing. Sort of, you know, celebrating him and hoping he has a great career after he punched a woman in the face.

And I guess, should that -- should that end his career for all time? There's a lot of people who think so.

JEFFY: Yeah, in today's world, there's a lot of people who think you should stop existing.

PAT: Yeah. And I don't think that Brent get that at this stage. What is he? Seventy-five now?

JEFFY: Probably, yeah.

PAT: But the other thing he was doing -- I don't know how many times he called these large football players rascals.

(laughter)

That rascal. That's a big rascal.

JEFFY: That's a big one.

PAT: And the other thing he kept sayings was youngin's. These youngin's and rascals.

JEFFY: Of course.

PAT: Okay. You're not in 1956 anymore, Brent. So, again, it just might be time.

JEFFY: No. It might be time, Brent. Just to -- we love you. Okay? And every once in a while --

PAT: And I do. I think he's great.

JEFFY: Every once in a while, come back around. Maybe do a press conference at the Bowl games every once in a while. The Sugar Bowl maybe gives you a special award. You're the Sugar Bowl guy.

PAT: You're the honorary color man for the Sugar Bowl.

JEFFY: You're the guy, from here on out.

PAT: We allow you to say three things during the Sugar Bowl.

JEFFY: We allow you to say, "And the Sugar Bowl winner this year is..."

PAT: So it just might be time.

JEFFY: We'll get you a ticket. You're up in the booth, and you're good.

PAT: And I will say, it definitely is time for the Obamas.

Now, this happened a couple of weeks ago, but we were on vacation when she said it. And I couldn't believe the insensitivity of it at the time.

But it reminded me how glad I am to see these two go. When Michelle Obama sat down with Oprah and because -- and they're talking about the Trump presidency and how the left is going crazy.

And here's what Michelle Obama said.

MICHELLE: We're feeling what not having hope feels like, you know. Hope is necessary. It's a necessary concept. And Barack didn't just talk about hope because he thought it was just a nice slogan to get votes.

JEFFY: Yes, he did.

MICHELLE: I mean, he and I and so many believe that what else do you have if you don't have hope?

VOICE: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

MICHELLE: What do you give your kids if you can't give them hope?

PAT: I'm sorry. Was she saying that about the right, who almost lost all hope when her husband was elected, when her Marxist husband was elected in 2008? No.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: They didn't care at all what the right was feeling. They didn't -- they didn't give -- they didn't care at all about anybody but themselves. And now all of a sudden, now they see that their reaction is much the same as ours. And they have no recognition of that. None!

They are the most unaware people. These liberals and progressives apparently can't see beyond their own noses. It's just amazing.

And it's -- it's one of the reasons I'll be very happy to say goodbye to them on January 20th, regardless of who is entering the White House. Just so they're going out the other door.

JEFFY: Yeah, they're gone.

PAT: Just so they're gone.

JEFFY: And he makes a big point now of continuing to say that he's still going to be involved.

PAT: I'm not going anywhere. I'm not going anywhere.

JEFFY: Still going to be in Washington.

PAT: Yeah, he told some little girl that.

JEFFY: Going to school.

PAT: I was only paying half attention to the news cycle when we were on vacation, but he was telling some little kid, "I'm not going anywhere." Because the kid was saying how he's going to miss him and all of that. And I thought, "I don't know if I can handle it if you don't go anywhere. You need to go somewhere and just leave us alone now okay? You've done enough."

JEFFY: There's no way he does that either.

PAT: It's fascinating to watch this though because, again, they are so unaware. Paul Krugman, Nobel-winning economist and liberal New York Times columnist said that he's lost faith in the future of the United States. Now, when we were saying this in 2008 and 2012, that we were concerned about the future --

JEFFY: What!

PAT: Who do you want to take the country back from? A black man? Well, who do you want to take the country back from? A white guy? A capitalist? A -- what do you say?

In a series of tweets following Trump's expected triumph in the electoral college, Krugman seemed to be despondent with the state of the US: So it's official, and it's vile. The loser of the popular vote installed by Russian intervention, a rogue FBI, an epic media malfunction, he tweeted. We should never accept this as okay. It may be a new normal. But that's a new normal in which the America we knew and loved is gone.

It's just agonizing.

JEFFY: It sure is.

PAT: It is agonizing. Are people noticing that the Trump economic team is shaping up as a gathering of Gold bugs?

JEFFY: Wait.

PAT: What is it -- I'm not sure what that means. Goldman Sachs people I guess he's talking about?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: People who are successful economically, I guess he's talking about.

JEFFY: I hate those people.

PAT: You got to hate them.

JEFFY: I hate those people that are successful.

PAT: Krugman gave the highest praise to Larry Kudlow, who is expected to be named the head of the Council of Economic Advisers. In this crew, Kudlow, who thinks it's always the 1970s, but doesn't seem to hyperinflation under his bed is the most reasonable.

Okay. Well, I mean, it -- it's fascinating to watch their machinations now. It's fascinating to watch their panic, their fear, the fact that they're all buying shelters now. They're installing these -- these self-sufficient shelters that in some cases are costing seven, ten, $15 million. Now, when we said, "Hey, you might want to store some extra food," it was crazy. It was nuts.

JEFFY: What are you talking about? Preaching the end of times?

PAT: When we were saying, "Hey, maybe it's good to have 10 percent of gold in your portfolio." I'm not talking about buying all the gold in the universe, I'm just saying maybe 10 percent of what you own.

JEFFY: Oh, how crazy are you?

PAT: You're so crazy, you're just making money. And now they're taking these incredibly drastic measures. It's perfectly fine. It's perfectly fine. Nothing wrong with it.

JEFFY: It's okay. Not crazy at all.

PAT: Now when they say the end of the world is coming because of Donald Trump, it's perfectly fine. There's no problem.

Just -- I'm not asking them not to say it. I'm just ask them to notice that you thought all of that was crazy in 2008 when we were concerned.

JEFFY: It would be nice. There's no way.

PAT: And maybe you could learn the lesson from us that, "Okay. We thought that he would -- and he did fundamentally transform America. But we thought it might be to the point to where we would even have no place in it.

I'm not sure what we thought would happen. Economic collapse. Who knows.

And he did do a lot of damage. But we survived it. And here we are.

So it would be nice if they could learn that lesson, that we thought it was going to be catastrophic when he was elected. And he's been elected to two terms. And we survived it.

We'll survive this guy, no matter what. We'll survive him.

And that's -- you know, I think that's what's given me so much hope, is that realization. After the election, I thought, "Well, you know, we've survived a lot. We survived a Marxist president."

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Who I don't think even has much admiration for this country.

JEFFY: Not a chance. No way.

PAT: And somehow we got through it all. We survived his socialist program, his Obamacare. We survived the government taking over 17 percent of the economy. Now, it's made things worse. There's no doubt about that. And a lot worse. And even for people who don't have Obamacare, it's made health care extraordinarily expensive and has ruined our coverage.

We used to have the best coverage I've ever had. It has declined so much over the last few years, since Obamacare. It's almost unrecognizable now.

JEFFY: It's quite a bit different.

PAT: It's a lot different.

JEFFY: I mean, I got --

PAT: I mean, Glenn was really proud of the fact that he offered the best insurance available, and he did.

JEFFY: And he should be.

PAT: And he should be.

JEFFY: Yeah, absolutely.

PAT: Yes. But now, you can't even get that insurance anymore. You can't even get it. They won't even put the parameters into the computer because they don't have those parameters anymore.

JEFFY: It was -- as long as we're down this road. It was frustrating in our gatherings with changing of insurance that we kept here. Well, this is the best it is. This is the best --

PAT: This is really great.

JEFFY: Nobody else has got --

PAT: It was so frustrating that I had to point out to them: Yeah, well, it's not to us. Because we used to have much better. Yeah, well, that doesn't exist anymore. So...

Okay. Well, thank you, Obamacare. Appreciate it.

JEFFY: Right. And that's why Nancy Pelosi is proud to tell the Republicans, "Look, if you break Obamacare, they own it. They break it, they own it."

PAT: It's already broken.

JEFFY: No kidding. Nancy.

PAT: I've got news for Nancy Pelosi: It's been broken since day one.

JEFFY: Day one.

PAT: 888-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program coming up.

(OUT AT 10:50AM)

PAT: Welcome. Pat and Jeffy. 888-727-BECK. Hopefully will be back -- feeling better tomorrow.

JEFFY: Well, if he doesn't move.

PAT: Yeah, if he doesn't move.

JEFFY: If he listens to us.

PAT: Because, again, he was sitting in a chair, doing just fine. And then moved. You can't do that.

JEFFY: How many times we say, "Sit down, don't move."

PAT: Threw out his back. Don't move. And maybe he's learned an important lesson here today.

JEFFY: I hope so. I hope so.

PAT: I sure hope so.

We were talking about the Rock Hall of Fame a little bit earlier. Who were the -- are there five or six -- there's five or six artists that have got into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame --

JEFFY: Strong.

PAT: Like Joan Baez. Who doesn't love Joan Baez?

JEFFY: I may have taken the full list down. But Tupac.

PAT: Tupac Shakur.

JEFFY: Journey.

PAT: Journey, who deserves it. ELO deserves it. And Yes.

JEFFY: Yeah.

Oh, Pearl Jam.

PAT: Oh, and Pearl Jam.

JEFFY: Pearl Jam.

PAT: So that's the other one.

Chris, in California, you're on the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Hey. Absolutely.

So I think that we should probably go with Phoebe Snow. Because Phoebe Snow has got that '70s sound. We were all about '70s here, right?

JEFFY: I love Phoebe.

PAT: Poetry man? Right?

JEFFY: Come on now. Yeah.

CALLER: No, no, I was thinking more of Midnight in the Oasis.

PAT: Oh, that's Maria Muldaur.

CALLER: Oh. Maria.

JEFFY: I've got an album of Phoebe doing some covers, and she may have done that song on that album.

PAT: She might have. But nobody does it like the original done by Maria Muldaur.

JEFFY: I know. I know.

CALLER: Well, there you go.

PAT: Midnight at the Oasis.

JEFFY: Come on. Who doesn't love that song? Who doesn't love Midnight at the Oasis?

PAT: Oh, I think everybody does. I know I do.

JEFFY: Thank you. He's got a point with Phoebe Snow. I mean, Poetry Man is --

PAT: And as long as we're at it, why not put Minnie Riperton into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the one who did loving you is easy because you're beautiful.

JEFFY: I mean, there should actually be like a wing to the Rock Hall and Fame, to the one-hit greatness of songs.

PAT: Well, there's definitely a wing for rap artists. There's a wing for R&B. There's a wing for people who are just influential.

JEFFY: Yeah, to their core.

PAT: That you've never heard of. But people were influenced by them, whether they were a producer or they were a writer or they were a band that nobody's ever heard of. But bands heard of them.

JEFFY: But the iconic band came from here.

PAT: Yes. And liked them, so they're in. So why not, a one-hit wonder wing? It's -- the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a sham. It's a travashamockery. And I think we all know it.

JEFFY: So what happens? Do you change your tune if they -- if they put Foreigner in?

PAT: Well, it will help. I don't know if it will cure the disease. But it eases the pain a little.

JEFFY: It will ease the pain a little. That's just a throw-in.

PAT: But look how long it took to put Journey in. Come on. That's a no-brainer. I'm not a big Journey fan anymore because they're so overplayed. I just got sick of them. But it's Journey.

JEFFY: I'm not either, but it's Journey. It's Journey. Come on.

PAT: They sold 100 million plus.

JEFFY: It's not about that.

PAT: Chicago went in I think last year. They sold 125 million.

JEFFY: At least.

PAT: They're iconic. How do you leave those bands out? ELO just got in this year.

JEFFY: Well, so did Tupac. So that's good. That's good. Tupac is in.

PAT: Yes. And, I mean, he was shot nine times. So he should have been in a long time ago. A long time ago.

JEFFY: Right!

Featured Image: Promotional studio portrait of American rock group Foreigner, 1977. (L-R): Lou Gramm, Ian McDonald, Al Greenwood, Mick Jones, Dennis Elliot. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.