Glenn Beck: The truth on Obamacare

October 15, 2009

Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Robert Reich: What An Honest President Would Say About Health Reform

GLENN: There's something else that I want to play, and Pat, will you set this up for me?

PAT: This is

GLENN: But as Yoda?

PAT: Robert Reich this is, hmmm? Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So this is Robert Reich.

PAT: Robert Reich, who was Bill Clinton's labor secretary.

GLENN: Now, is it Robert Reich III, or is it Robert Third Reich?

PAT: Robert Third Reich. Robert is a huge Barack Obama supporter, proponent, advocate.

STU: Economic advisor as well.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

PAT: I was getting to that.

STU: Oh, okay.

PAT: Yeah, he's on both teams. He was officially with the Clinton administration, but he also served with Barack Obama's economic advisory.

STU: He's a heavy weight.

PAT: He is. And he's been advised and he was the one who said that white people shouldn't get all the stimulus jobs, white construction workers.

STU: I'm so glad

GLENN: I love him.

PAT: So glad. Well, here he is talking. This is Robert Reich talking about the way healthcare should be.

GLENN: Should be.

PAT: This was like a year ago, a year and a half ago.

GLENN: Now, this is wait a minute. Hang on. He said this is the way it should be, and this is the speech that if we were

PAT: That a presidential candidate should make, if he really had the guts. If he didn't care about winning or losing, this is the way he would set up the healthcare debate.

GLENN: Okay. Because he says this is the truth. So now here he is saying this is what the truth is, and if there was anybody that had the cojones to tell you the truth, this would be the speech that that person would give.

REICH: I will actually give you a speech made up entirely almost at the spur of the moment of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored.

GLENN: We're in a republic!

REICH: In terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality.

GLENN: Stop, stop, stop, stop. I can't take it.

PAT: That education thing, it just shows again, I am above you. I'm educated. That's why I

GLENN: And you can't separate myth from reality.

PAT: You're not educated. This, "I went, I'm summa cum laude from Dartmouth and I'm a former Harvard professor."

GLENN: I can't take these people, I can't take the arrogance of them.

PAT: It's unbelievable, unbelievable.

GLENN: So you go ahead. Stupid people, just try really hard to he may use some big words here. Try to understand.

REICH: In terms of what candidates would tell them: Thank you so much for coming this afternoon.

GLENN: This is the speech.

REICH: I'm so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on healthcare. Look, we are we have the only healthcare system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. That's true. And what I'm going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people, but that means

GLENN: Stop. I'm confused. Amenable, does that mean that they are amoebas, that he's going to release amoebas? I don't even know what amoebas are but they sound delicious.

PAT: He wants amoebas to be treated because right now we're apparently not treating amoebas.

GLENN: He was using big words. I don't know if we've lost the audience. We'll translate later.

REICH: You, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people, you are going to have to pay more.

GLENN: Whoa. Listen to this. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Listen to this. This audience is so ready for saying, "Yes, yes, the young people should pay more. They should pay more, yes."

PAT: Wait until you see what else they clap for.

REICH: And by the way, we are going to have to, if you are very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive. So we're going to let you die.

PAT: Again, again Barack Obama's economic advisor, again this is what Sarah Palin alluded to.

GLENN: Death panels.

PAT: This is what we've talked about, this is what we warned you with, withhold Ren and Sunstein.

GLENN: I'm telling you

PAT: These guys all feel this way.

GLENN: Holdren and Sunstein are extraordinarily dangerous, extraordinarily dangerous. Between healthcare and the environment, those two men, those two men, in the wrong conditions, will be responsible for many, many deaths. Many deaths. You know, I because here's what I want. Here's what I want. I would like a member of the press to ask Cass Sunstein and Holdren the one question: You both talked about putting sterilants in drinking water, or something like that. I mean, you both were on this whole kick of

PAT: Forced abortions, population control, blah, blah blah.

GLENN: All of this stuff, you're all for that stuff. You now say that was discredited and you no longer believe those things. But that's because the population explosion turned out to be wrong. Is there any other explosion of anything? Is there global warming or is there too expensive healthcare or social programs that would make you say these things are reasonable? Because I haven't heard you discredit your solutions. I have heard you say that the problem was discredited, right, Stu?

STU: I mean, they certainly walked away from those old statements and then

GLENN: You don't say I'm going to put I think we should put sterilants in drinking waters; I think we should have forced sterilization; I think we should have forced abortions. You don't say those things and not know the moment you changed your mind and went, "Whoa, that was crazy."

STU: Right.

GLENN: You have that

PAT: And that moment should come before you join an administration.

GLENN: An administration.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: It can't be the excuse.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: "Oh, I'm different now."

GLENN: And what they say, they don't even say that.

PAT: No, they don't.

GLENN: "Look, that was a different time. The population explosion thing, that was real. That's been discredited. And then everything else they've said, they said that was just in an academic setting." So let me ask you this: If Rush Limbaugh would have said about McNabb, if he would have said it while on the campus of Harvard while he was teaching, would it have been acceptable?

STU: Ask Larry Summers who's sitting in the administration.

GLENN: Exactly right. Exactly right. There's something wrong, something big time wrong.

Now, so what we have here is Robert Third Reich say that he is going to you think that's bad?

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Robert Reich say I mean, he's saying we're to the going to what he just said

PAT: He's saying you need to die! If you're old!

GLENN: We're going to have death panels!

PAT: Sorry, if you're old, you die; we don't treat you.

STU: Wait a minute. There's an important clarification there. He did not say anything about death panels. He was just making the decision.

PAT: You're right.

STU: There's no panel of information. You're just dead.

PAT: Because he's the presidential candidate; we're going to let you die.

GLENN: Now, he just said if you're old, you're too expensive, we're not going to spend that money and we're going to let you die. Now, as outrageous as that is, here is what's more outrageous. Listen to the reaction of the crowd. He just said we're going to let you die because it's too expensive.

(Applause)

PAT: Yeah!

STU: Yeah, death, woo hoo! Old people dead, woo hoo hoo! Yeah, yeah! Woo hoo!

GLENN: Okay, okay, okay, okay. Who reacts that way? Who happen reacts that way?

STU: I can't

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Why? Why would you

PAT: I don't know.

STU: Maybe you laugh because you think he's being blunt, but you certainly don't clap. There's nothing to clap about. He just said he was going to kill all the old people! They weren't worth the

GLENN: But wait, wait. You can say this is an academic example: He's just using an academic, he's just giving a speech. But he's giving the speech that he said should be given in the perfect republic I'm sorry, the perfect democracy!

STU: And he's being honest! It's true! That's what these policies bring!

GLENN: This is why I said last hour, you must root yourself in the truth. You must know what you believe. You must know who you trust. And then you don't have to do anything! You just have to repeat the facts. You just have to show these things to people. Because when they see these things, these people destroy themselves. In their arrogance they built a tower to reach the sky. In their arrogance, they are so overeducated, so far above you and me and us puny little ants that they could crush with their feet. They don't think that it matters that you know. Oh, they're so sadly mistaken. So sadly mistaken. Know which side you're on. Are you the side that says, "Oh, my gosh!" Or are you on the side that makes the Robert Reich statement or just the one on the side that is clapping for the, "Yeah, let's kill old people"? Or, are you the person and I think this is the worst one. Are you the person that is sitting there in the room and says, "Wow, that doesn't sound... good. I'll just... I'll just nevermind. It doesn't matter." Do not be that person. Do not be that person.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep