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.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.