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.

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.