Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

TheBlaze TV

Beck Answers Questions From Viewers on Gov’t Assistance

Feb. 9, 2013 6:56am Tiffany Gabbay

On Friday evening Glenn Beck answered viewers questions on a variety of topics including government assistance and how one balances concerns about financial security with a desire to not rely on the Uncle Sam.

For Beck, he said that he believes that “I am here to do nothing but stand on my own to feet and grow stronger and provide help and relief for others who can’t.”

“The last resort should be the federal government.”

Beck also answered other questions submitted by viewers. His remarks are featured below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (57)

rockin-robin
Posted on February 21, 2013 at 4:25am
never thought that I would coment on anything but you know if you can’t stand the heat don’t get next to the fire .keep on truckin glen

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
rockin-robin
Posted on February 21, 2013 at 4:17am
Isn’t it nice to live in a country that dosn’t put you in jail just for speaking your thoughts.why does everyone beatup on beck when maybe none of you have ever even come close to busting your but to help others the way beck has.think about it talk is cheap an action speaks volumes.Thanks glen

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Constantine Ivanov
Posted on February 10, 2013 at 2:07pm
No matter how attractive the Beck’s standpoint may sound, it’s rather “theoretical” than really practical.
Let’s take as an example an aged 50 person who came to this country from one of the former socialist countries.
S/he is an atheist, hard-working, freedom-loving, socialism-hating workaholic.
Despite his/her many talents, nobody in the USA wants to hire him/her because his profession is not on big demand here, and his/her English is less than perfect.
With a lot of spent efforts and money, s/he changes his profession and finally finds a job.
But then, when s/he is already 60, all of a sudden, 9/11 happens, and s/he losses his/her job.
S/he has not enough points to get a full-scale pension. And her/his age doesn’t allow to get SS.
Meanwhile, s/he gets severely sick and her/his health is deteriorating swiftly, so s/he can’t perform even an occasional work. At 65, s/he eventually gets SS benefits which, due to the lack of enough points, is at the lowest level possible, around $740.
Tell me, how can such a person, a former workaholic, live on that money? What church will help an atheist? In the USA, s/he has (almost) no friends, at least those who can and want to help.
Tell me how Beck’s life model works in such a scenario?
There are hundreds of thousands of such people, it’s not a unique example.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- aconstitutionalistlivesinbrooklyn
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 3:15pm
  What model does work in such a scenario?
  
  Report this comment
- Constantine Ivanov
  Posted on February 11, 2013 at 1:45am
  @ACONSTITUTIONALISTLIVESINBROOKLYN:
  I’m happy you asked your question: at least somebody has showed an interest to this very important issue.
  As a very much conservative (you see: atheists and/or not fanatically religious people as I am can also be Conservative -:)), I am trying to find a way around all schemes that the Liberasts usually propose.
  But, frankly, it’s hard to invent anything unless there is a way to stimulate/encourage/force people, particularly wealthy ones, to establish some public funds, but without usual bureaucracy that will inevitably devour/suck out all fund’s money.
  I assume, it’s a very important but separate topic to discuss.
  If you have any specific ideas worthy of note and time, you may want to send me a letter to Constantine@RonaldReagan.com.
bdandsl
Posted on February 10, 2013 at 12:05pm
There used to be a time in history that taking ‘charity’ was shameful for a man. It showed their failure as a man unable to provide for his family. Now, I know most of us at one or another have needed help. I even had to swallow my pride and ask for help before But, it is the attitude that has changed, that men and women these days believe handouts are due them for the simple fact they were born.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 12:15pm
  EXCELLENT point. Beck POSES as a “restorer” of American nobility and virtue… but is only leader her FURTHER FROM IT. His community organizing, “charity” and volunteerism is NO DIFFERENT than Obama’s.
  
  Report this comment
symphonic
Posted on February 10, 2013 at 11:23am
Beck said “my grandfather told us, we don’t take charity! We give charity!”

What’s THAT supposed to even mean?? If Beck thinks its bad to take charity and that was drilled into his head by his grandfather, then what do they think of the people who TAKE their charity? That they are then evil/wrong for choosing to accept it?

ENOUGH with all this self righteous and inconsistent pride. Charity is the pure love of Christ and the receiver of it is not bad, but humble. Its what is in the heart that God cares about. Man not taking charity because he thinks it’s wrong is nothing more than a prideful man. A man that would let his family suffer, literally, so he can wash dishes and feel his sense of pride, still not meet the needs and obligations for the family, is nothing more than pride. While his children suffer he somehow feels good about himself? Such utter nonsense.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- rockin-robin
  Posted on February 21, 2013 at 3:50am
  I agree to a point charity begins at home and when home is broke its really nice to recieve help and its not shameful at all.Beck does a really good job of helping people and offering good solutions to our current problems in washington.Thanks glen keep up the good work
  
  Report this comment
symphonic
Posted on February 10, 2013 at 11:16am
If social welfare is supposedly “unconstitutional” (hint: its not), then be consistent in your arguments if you think so… public school is socialism too and amounts to “free” education for the poor and regular folk paid for by taxation of primarily rich folks dollars or those who don’t have kids etc. That would have to be “unconstitutional” too, but its not. Its just what the people choose by their votes.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 12:12pm
  Actually, symphonic, you’ve neglected (or either INTENTIONALLY left out) America’s system of DECENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT. “School” is for the LOCAL community to organize and finance any way they see fit. However, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO INVOLVE ITSELF into education.
  
  FEDERAL “welfare” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SS, Medicare, Bushcare (Medicare Part D), Obamacare, Disability, FEMA, HUD, WIC, SNAP, UC, etc, etc… ARE ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL and MUST BE STOPPED NOW! NOW! The FEDERAL government has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to threaten me with VIOLENCE, unless I BOW TO IT’S LAWLESS DECREES.
  
  Report this comment
DoOrDie
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 9:12pm
These liberal leeches better be glad I’m not president. I would hand them a box with bread, eggs, milk, water, and oatmeal, and only if they didn’t have nice clothes, shoes, cell phones, or jewelry.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- oneoldpatriot
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 8:32am
  Nor urine that tests positive for drugs.
  
  Report this comment
- symphonic
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 11:28am
  such utter ugly self righteous viewpoints, devoid of even a speck of charity.
  
  Report this comment
AmericanStrega
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:50pm
We used to give money to the local food bank. We did this year after year because we could afford it and felt we were helping those who needed help. One year we were unable to give them money. We were sent a very nasty letter from the food bank because we didn’t send what they expected from us. I actually called and spoke to one of their people and told them we could not give money this time, because we just didn’t have enough to share. I was called “stingy”, among other words, and was told my family should do without to help those who were in need. Since then I have never given my hard earned money to any other charity. Call me anything you want, but I will not be strong-armed into paying for someone in need before the needs of my family.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- symphonic
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 11:27am
  you let the insensitivity of one control what you really should be. You dont act for yourself, you are merely acted upon…
  
  Report this comment
- DesertRose1960
  Posted on February 11, 2013 at 11:49am
  I understand what you’re saying and I don’t disapprove of your stance, but you are a perfect example of exactly why relying on private charity will not work for society as a whole. If we leave it to people to decide who they want to help and how much they want to help, then we will have a lot more people in need, because there is no large pool of tax dollars to draw from.
  
  Report this comment
JohnQTaxpayer
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 12:34pm
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

will be the phrase that will destroy the entire world financial system

It will be written in the history books

America committed suicide in the name of helping those people whom contributed the least to the advancement of society

In the process the American government martyred; prosperity, intellect, indivualism, greatness and morals to the poor

America chose bankruptcy and anarchy over responsibility

JQT

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- socialism.rocks
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 5:05pm
  it was the plutocrats the rich who destroyed every empire pick up a history book ******- “An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.”plutarch
  
  Report this comment
- JohnQTaxpayer
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:30pm
  Socialism only works when the host and the parasite are in agreement. If the parasite dies the host survives, if the parasite consumes the host they both die.
  It always ends the same way, the parasite “needs // wants” more than the host is capable of and they both die.
  Read all you want, this time it will end the same way as it always does, the parasite tries to take from the host ; at the point of a gun.
  They both die.
  JQT
  
  Report this comment
- symphonic
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 11:30am
  Better to have charity than to withhold it and go with both feet into hell with the rich man that would not help Lazarus.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnQTaxpayer
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 2:53pm
  When the music stops and the “poor” turn to cannibalism, you will be the first to be eaten.
  
  Report this comment
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 12:09pm
Psssst…. FAKE-conservative/libertarian, Alinskyite REPUBLICAN Beck,

The “last resort” in America is family, friends, neighbors, church, charity (VOLUNTARY), community (VOLUNTARY) and LOCAL, I repeat, LOCAL governments (IF the LOCAL citizens make it so).

But the FEDERAL “last resort”… simply DOES NOT EXIST!

Funny how REPUBLICANS (who will NEVER admit to being republican) HAVE NO PROBLEM with UNCONSTITUTIONAL government… as long as it’s a “responsible safety net” or it “spends what it has” OR SOME OTHER SUCH REPUBLICAN NONSENSE!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- symphonic
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 11:31am
  yeah, it was strange that Beck missed that easy point.
  
  Report this comment
- symphonic
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 11:36am
  you need to demonstrate HOW the Constitution limits these things. Governments build roads and bridges that many people do not personally need, and the Constitution does not limit that. They build libraries and the Constitution does not limit that. They build public schools and the Constitution does not limit that. FREE public school. Socialism public school.
  
  Why don’t you be consistent and list PUBLIC SCHOOL in your laundry list of so called “unconstitutional” things? It is because you are inconsistent. You say things are “unconstitutional” and you don’t even know how, nor can you point to something in the Constitution that says so. Its tiring, really…
  
  Report this comment
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 12:26pm
  Well, symphonic… because the Constitution restricts THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. See? But the LOCAL governments (per the 10th Amendment), OR BETTER YET, THE FREE MARKET… can build as many libraries (welfare bookstores) as they want. Personally, I would prefer VOLUNTARILY BUYING A BOOK at Borders… instead of being FORCED THROUGH THREAT OF VIOLENCE to “buy” books for OTHER PEOPLE (in a welfare bookstore – “library”)… but LOCAL-BUILT libraries have nothing to do with the Federal Constitution.
  
  Most socialists will INTENTIONALLY AVOID America’s governmental structure of DECENTRALIZED government. They DECEPTIVELY lump every level of government together, in order to TRY to make Constitutionalist APPEAR hypocrites. Notice, when defending UNCONSTITUTIONAL socialism, they immediately redirect to LOCAL “roads” or “police.” Notice how they NEVER defend UNCONSTITUTIONAL socialism by citing things like Obamafones or TSA?
  
  Report this comment
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 11:56am
““The last resort should be the federal government.”

What does this mean?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Disability?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Bushcare (Medicare Part D)?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Medicare?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UC?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SS?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL Welfare?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL WIC?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL SNAP?
UNCONSTITUTIONAL HUD?

Either FAKE-conservative/libertarian Beck HAS NO UNDERSTANDING of Constitutional restraints (Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment)… or he REJECTS those Constitutional restraints.

Which… is it?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 2:51pm
  Saul Alinsky is dead.
  
  Report this comment
- CommonSenseTalk
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 6:10pm
  I don’t understand, by calling it unconstitutional it will fix the government? A moral person should starve to death in the street because all the programs that are in place are unconstitutional. We need to use what we have and start cutting away the waste.
  
  So attacking the few people who would like to see smaller government will fix the problem?
  
  Report this comment
- pudssweetie
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:16pm
  Truth is Brother, if more people, like yourself, would shut their big flaps and do more in their communities to make sure the less fortunate were taken care of, we wouldn’t need the Government. As the saying goes, either put up or shut up. Question, when was the last time you donated any money to a homeless shelter, food pantry or your local Salvation Army or similar place? When was the last time you organized a food drive? You want to speak volumes of what not to do, but I can almost bet you do nothing to help those in your own community. Glenn Beck has donated MILLIONS, I repeat MILLIONS of dollars to charities, food banks and even has paid for expensive Medical Treatments or procedures for those in need. So what have you done lately besides parroting the same thing over and over again? I also ask the same thing of 13th Imam and Soybomb, what have any of you done for your communities?
  
  Report this comment
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:49pm
  Pudssweetie…
  
  Here’s Beck SLAMMING charity:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKOtIfdPu1I
  
  This was, of course… BEFORE… FAKE-conservative/libertarian Beck ADOPTED Obama’s “volunteerism” and “community organizing” and “charity”… to trick many naive people into trusting him and supporting the LEFTIST republican party – just like Obama does with the LEFTIST democrat party.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:58pm
  Pudsweetie- Awesome @sskicking. Brother is a parrot who is just brainwashed in the other direction. The answer to your question is probably never.
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 8:34pm
  Pudpuller
  
  I volunteer at a Free Book Bank in New Haven, Ct. I do all the pickups for them in my truck. For the past 7 years. I have a feeling ,like most progressives you only work for monetary gains, never on your own dime. So, As Joe says , Bite Me.
  
  Report this comment
Guitar Master
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 11:34am
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
From THE REPORTER
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hate to be critical, however, Glenn’s show is becoming, well, let’s say tedious to watch over the past couple of months. Many would argue that the best program in that stretch of time was the interview with Judge Andrew N.

Glenn lacks credibility as a futurist as long as he keeps demeaning groups he calls “truthers.” Could it be that the Glenn Beck phenomenon has peaked? Only time will tell.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 12:00pm
  Yes. I myself, haven’t the stomach to sit through an interview with the great Judge Nap, if NAUSEATING, FAKE-conservative/libertarian Beck is conducting it… But Nap IS THE REAL DEAL! And possibly ONE OF THE ONLY PEOPLE I would vote for in 2016.
  
  I hope the Judge’s message is hitting fresh ears, through the Beck vessel… and I PRAY that NOBODY thinks that FAKE-conservative/libertarian REPUBLICAN Beck HAS ANYTHING IN COMMON with him.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:59pm
  BWS- Fake Conservative libertarian.
  
  Report this comment
marybethelizabeth
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 10:54am
All you folks that contribute money to MercuryOne.

This week Glenn Beck Announced that he is using that money to buy historical papers and items.

He said maybe, maybe, one day he will build a museum.

He said the doc**uments need to be preserved. They are being preserved just fine without Glenn Beck.

Just know that you may think the money given to MercuryOne is being used for good works when it actually could be used for Mr. Beck’s personal amusement.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- old white guy
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 11:12am
  sure they are. i have watched as history that i have been an eyewitness to has been changed.
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 2:56pm
  BarryMeth
  
  I feel the same way about the FORCED taking of my money by Barry. And used for his kingships personal pleasure, giving it to his low information voter TAKER crowd to buy their votes.
  
  Whoda thunk we could agree on sumtin sumtin
  
  Report this comment
TRUTHandFREEDOM
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 9:12am
This is a difficult issue for many people because the heart and Bible says HELP OTHERS but the Bible also say don’t covet neighbor’s goods & don’t steal (property rights!). It comes down to the question of how do you follow both. The truth is that you can MUCH better than we do. You can help others by first taking care of yourself (if, how & where ever possible). Provide for your needs first & luxuries second. WHen/if hard times come, luxuries go first. That’s depressing, but responsible self government not clearly understood by many during bill & life management.You can help others by actually, financially or physically helping others! WOW! You can teach or mentor as well. You can help by fundraising for others. Money doesn’t NEED to be taken (taxed) away from others. I can’t recall the name, but there was a statement from a rep from Massachusetts of all places during the income tax debates, that the tax was not needed to meet government expenses, but being advanced to manipulate the individual’s choices, actions & decisions (freedom) as Agenda 21 & Obamacare advocate.

There have been efforts from the founders to today to provide for the needs, not luxuries of those incapable of providing for themselves. Most of us are able and capable, but the permanent assistance lifestyle has grown in popularity in America. We need to make it short term except for those who truly have no alternatives.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TRUTHandFREEDOM
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 9:46am
  I will also add that the founder’s approach to assistance was local, NOT FEDERAL.
  
  I wasn’t surprised to see the History Channel’s “The ultimate guide to the Presidents” turn into “Let’s celebrate activist progressive Presidents and bring yawns to the ones who left us alone”.
  
  They raved up Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR, celebrated Teddy’s “The Constitution says what I can’t do, but not what I can” comment that Obama echoed a few years ago and totally disregard the fact that the 10th amendment says what he CAN do; LEAVE UNASSIGNED FEDERAL POWER TO THE STATES AND TO THE PEOPLE!
  
  They also made Grover Cleveland’s veto to prevent federal funds from assisting Texas Farmers as a negative when his Constitutional and Jeffersonian approach was correct. Free and individual taxpayers donated over 10 times the vetoed bill’s amount by INDIVIDUAL decision.
  
  Cleveland said “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.”
  
  Report this comment
- TRUTHandFREEDOM
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 9:57am
  In my first comment, I was referring to a Masachusetts Representative in the initial income tax debates in the early 1900s.
  
  Report this comment
mrst
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 8:59am
If you cannot think of someone You personally have helped with food, clothing, transport, a job, a roof, etc.. in the past month– then you can’t complain about the gov doing it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 9:33am
  That is gov theft. Take from producers , give to Takers. You know, the low information voters,
  
  Report this comment
- TRUTHandFREEDOM
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 10:10am
  “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, “to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
  Thomas Jefferson
  
  Report this comment
Moozmom
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 8:55am
The current day slavery seems evocative of the 1800′s slavery. The difference being is those in bondage are finding ways kill their race off slowly but surely.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
justangry
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 8:38am
There is NO authorization for the federal government to provide a safety net AT ALL. Stop being an apologists to the left. A little bit of wealth distribution (theft) is no more morale than a lot of wealth distribution. Some folks will fall through the cracks. It sucks, but it must be that way so we can live free.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Bonnieblue2A
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 10:28am
  A safety net just catches people and lessens the impact of a hard fall. The problem is people use the safety net as hammock and won’t get off of it.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 10:37am
  i dont see anything resembling safety net in the constittuion
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 11:02am
  @Bonnieblue2A, We feel empathy and sadness for those that fall through the safety net. But we do NOT legislate based on emotion like the liberals. Expanding the federal government leads to one outcome.
  
  Report this comment
- Sosorryforyou
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:55pm
  @JUSTANGRY
  
  “But we do NOT legislate based on emotion like the liberals.” who have no qualms trying to pass legislation to help those who are less fortunate such as disabled vets and others on disability, the elderly, the long-term unemployed, the hard-working, low-income wage earner, etc., etc. etc. Boy, if it weren’t for my damn EMOTIONS, I could forgo ever feeling badly denying these “takers” the help they “supposedly” need.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 10, 2013 at 6:24am
  Sosorryforyou, Take a hike, pinko. There are still some decent people that believe in the old “give me liberty or give me death”. Your statist BS always leads to tyranny. You’re asking for the government noose to be placed around your neck because of your feelings and your too unsophisticated to realize it. Besides, I am a disabled veteran. I won’t take your state’s money because the only way they would get that money is theft by way of force. And of course, I swore to defend the Constitution and federal welfare is violation of the 10th amendment.
  
  Report this comment
Kara_ite
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 8:24am
My religious beliefs are mine, I will not condemn you for not believing the way I believe.
There is one thing that I would like to get started around the world, just for me.
When you call the Tanach , which is the Torah (torah is a Hebrew word that means insturctions) and the writings (e.g. the writings of the prophets, the psalms, the proverbs, etc.), when you call it the OLD testament, it gives the connotation that it has passed away.
What if I called the Constitution of 1776, which my fore fathers bled and died for, the Outdated Constitution?
Even in the New Testament which is only about 1500 years old (how new is that?) someone said that not one jot or tittle of God’s word would pass away. Jesus carried a copy of the tanach in his back pocket and was schooled in the entire Tanach. Did he ever say that it had passed away?
I would like to educate everyone that you should begin at the beginning of the bible and read to the end, over and over again. Pray that YeHoVah (YHVH with the vowel sounds) will enlighten you as your read. There is an excellent book about how the vowel sounds were found in the Aleppo Codex (the oldest known copy of the Tanach). “Shattering the Conspiracy of Silence” by Nehemia Gordon.
He finds out what the conspiracy was and why we find the name of God substituted over 6,000 times in the Tanach.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jcldwl
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 8:48am
  Jesus did not carry a copy of the Tanach in his back pocket. It is the words of His Father. He already knew it. He was educating people on it at the age of twelve. Yes you should read the bible from beginning to end because you will find Jesus is in the bible from the very beginning.
  
  Report this comment
- skimmer57
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 9:13am
  I like to think of Jesus carrying it in his back pocket while wearing Glenn’s $129.99 pairs of blue jeans.He also would look fashionable if he was carrying a concealed weapon and plenty of packages of Glenn’s survival seeds. It would have been easier then that whole fish and loaves miracle.It doesn’t really matter because Glenn has been predicting the caliphate and the end of our way of life for sometime. Just buy all things Beck is hocking and you will be O.K.
  
  Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on February 9, 2013 at 7:35am
zzzzzzz…

Ug. This may seem interesting later in the day but 7:30 on a Saturday morning is not the best time to watch Glenn do his Dr. Phil impersonation.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- riseandshine
  Posted on February 9, 2013 at 12:58pm
  lol
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.