Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

War on Women: Part I

March 21, 2017
Staff

WRITER

There was a Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I and World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Desert Storm. But what's the longest-running war in world history? If you believe the mainstream media and the progressive left, it's the War on Women --- and it's being waged exclusively by people on the right. Learn the truth about the beginning of the women's movement and key issues troubling feminist today --- reproductive rights and equal pay.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

GLENN: There was a Revolutionary War, the War of 1812. The Civil War. World War I and World War II. The Korean War. Vietnam War. The Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan. Desert Storm. But the longest-running war in the history of this planet is the War on Women.

I mean, if we're to believe the media and the left. And it's being waged exclusively by people like you, the right.

Some, including a number of women, are not even aware that there is a Republican War on Women. Actress Lisa Kudrow, for example.

VOICE: Do you feel that the Republican War on Women is still an important issue to voters?

VOICE: The Republican War on Women?

VOICE: That's what it says. Do you feel that the Republican War on Women is still an important issue to voters?

VOICE: There's a Republican War on Women?

VOICE: Yeah.

GLENN: The answer, Lisa, is no. There is not a Republican War on Women. So bless you, that even an actress in the leftist world of Hollywood hysteria, she was so very unaware of this nonsensical, non-issue. Yet, Bill Maher attempts to explain the concept to her.

VOICE: Well, you know, I think he's referring back to -- now, this is something the Republicans did improve upon, I must say. Back in 2010, they were the legitimate rape people.

VOICE: Oh, well.

VOICE: They could not stop talking about ladies' private parts.

GLENN: Consider that quote for just a second: Back in 2010, they were the legitimate rape people? Being legitimate rape people would certainly seem to imply that you've legitimately actually raped someone, wouldn't it?

Instead, Maher alleges that what made them legitimate rape people was that they could not stop talking about ladies' private parts. First of all, call me crazy, but I consider talking a separate and distinct issue from actually raping. In reality, what took place in 2010 was that two little known Republicans clumsily spoke about issues related to rape. And that was the sum total of Republicans being legitimate rape people.

But it's rhetoric like that that has created the hysteria surrounding this so-called War on Women. So nonsensical is this issue, that during the 2012 Republican primary debates, ABC News' George Stephanopoulos directed this bizarre question to Mitt Romney.

VOICE: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?

VOICE: George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising. States have a right to ban contraception -- I can't imagine a state banning contraception. I can't imagine the circumstances where a state would want to do so. And if I were a governor of a state or a legislator of a state, I would totally and completely oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you're asking, given the fact that there's no state that wants to do so -- and I don't know of any candidate that wants to do so, you're asking, could it constitutionally be done? I'm going to ask for a constitutionalist here.

(laughter)

(applauding)

VOICE: I'm sure --

VOICE: Okay. Come on back.

VOICE: Do you believe that states have that right or not?

VOICE: George, I don't know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do, that no state wants to do and ask whether they can do it or not is kind of a silly thing, I think.

GLENN: All of this is not to say that there's never been issues concerning women's rights. Women have over time had cause for concern. Of course, we all know that. There was a time in this country when women couldn't even vote. However, that wasn't a Republican issue. That was a societal issue.

Commonly referred to as women's suffrage. The fight for women's right to vote began around 1830. It really heated up in the late 1800s and early 1900s. And the effort culminated in the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, in 1920. Tennessee was the last state needed to ratify the amendment, and it passed there by a single vote. The United States was one of the very first nations on the planet to recognize the right of women to vote.

As early as 1718 in the US, in Pennsylvania, married women were allowed to own and manage propagate in their own name during the incapacity of their own spouse. But it was a start. It may surprise some to know that in 1840, the republic of Texas allowed married women to own property in their own name. Period. The same thing applied in Maine and Maryland, with the provision that they couldn't control the land they owned.

All of which sounds ridiculous to us today, but 180 years ago, these were huge steps. Most of the rights obtained by women in the 1800s were obtained in the United States. By 1855, the University of Iowa became co-ed. Elsewhere in the world, these things were unheard of. When referring to things like abortion, progressives like to claim that since the Supreme Court ruled on the issue, it settled law, thus ending the debate for all time.

However, 100 years before abortion was settled law, the issue of a woman's right to vote also became settled law with the Supreme Court, ruling in 1874, that women had no right to vote.

In Missouri, a woman named Virginia Minor decided that it was definitely time for her and her fellow women to vote. She sued for the right. And the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided in Minor Versus Happersett, that Missouri law limiting the right to vote to male citizens is constitutional.

The court rejected the claim by Minor that state law deprives her of one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship in violation of the 14th Amendment. Amazingly, the court ruled that while women are people under the 14th Amendment, they are in a special category of nonvoting people. And states may grant or deny them the right to vote. So, really, let's stop with the Supreme Court settled law.

Since 1920, the front lines of this war have often involved contraception and abortion. Supposedly fighting for the life of an unborn baby is exactly denying women their reproductive rights. When, in fact, the protection of the life inside the womb is actually ensuring the completion of that reproductive right.

In addition, it is safe to assume that just over half of the lives saved by not aborting babies would one day grow up to be women.

In 2012, Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke testified to Congress about the hardships faced by female students over contraception.

VOICE: Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy. One told us of how embarrassed and just powerless she felt, when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time the contraception was not covered on her insurance. And she had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice, but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into her budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage faced this same choice.

GLENN: It cost $3,000 for birth control while attending law school?

I have to be frank with you, that's either an awful lot of sex, or you're buying your birth control devices at Tiffany's. First of all, to believe that the United States government should have any role whatsoever in assisting Americans to have sexual relationships is preposterous. It's not just unconstitutional, it's unthinkable. And second, even without any government involvement or insurance company contributions, birth control can be obtained incredibly cheaply, and in many cases, absolutely free.

Over the years, the War on Women has become a charged political flash point.

VOICE: Imagining paying 20 percent more for a cup of coffee just because you're a woman.

So why does Congress think it's okay that women get paid 20 percent less than a man for doing the same job? I'll fight for pay equity, to protect Planned Parenthood, choice for women, and expand paid and family leave.

Now, some politicians will belittle this as a woman's agenda, more proof that we just need more women in Congress. I'm Kathleen Matthews, and I approve this message.

GLENN: The fact that women earn 79 cents for every dollar that a man makes is continually cited. But even the Washington Post has attempted to dispel this falsehood. They've written about this every year since 2012 and most recently given the claim the dreaded two Pinocchios. There's a multitude of factors to consider, one of them is that the average man has more experience in the workplace than the average woman. And experience is one factor that plays a big role in determining pay. The Washington Post also notes that women tend to leave the work force for periods to raise children, to seek jobs that may have more flexible hours, but lower pay, and choose careers that tend to have lower pay.

By the way, BLS data shows that women who have never married have virtually no wage gap.

In 2011, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis noted that women may prefer to accept jobs with lower wages, but greater benefits, more flexible parental leave, for instance. Excluding such fringe benefits from the calculation would exaggerate the wage disparity.

In 2013, in an article from The Daily Beast, citing a Georgetown University survey on economic value of different college majors, it showed that nine out of the ten most remunerative such as petroleum and aerospace engineering were dominated by men. While nine of the ten least paying majors, such as social work and early childhood education were dominated by women. Again, when comparing similar education, experience, skill level, women earn about the same as men. And in some industries, slightly more.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.