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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn chats with SE Cupp regarding CPAC

February 10, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Former United States Senator Rick Santorum is surging in the polls after his mid-west sweep and has nearly doubled his numbers overnight. He followed that up with a rousing speech at CPAC where he didn't hold anything back. Romney also spoke and tried to make the case for his conservatism as more people move towards Santorum. Check out Glenn's conversation with SE Cupp who is at CPAC covering the event in the clip above.

GLENN: Let's go to S. E. Cupp who is down at CPAC. Hi, S. E.

CUPP: Hi, boss, how are you?

GLENN: Good, how are you?

CUPP: Happy birthday? Is that right?

GLENN: It is. It is my birthday. What did you get me?

CUPP: No, I was actually told I have a chief of staff friend for a Republican congressional member ran up to me today and said, oh, my God, Glenn and I have the same birthday. Please tell him happy birthday. So he alerted me.

GLENN: Really? He's a congressional staffer?

CUPP: He's chief of staff for a Republican member.

GLENN: Really?

CUPP: Yes.

GLENN: A good member or a bad member?

CUPP: He's great. Tim Huelskamp is a member.

GLENN: Don't know who Tim is.

CUPP: Okay.

GLENN: But I'm going to take your word for it. I love him. Where is he from? Where is he from?

CUPP: Kansas.

GLENN: All right. Well, so was Kathleen Sebelius and so I ‑‑

PAT: You never know.

GLENN: You never know. Tell me about CPAC. What's happening at CPAC? What is the attitude there? What's happening?

CUPP: Yeah, I mean, it's a bigger crowd than ever and over half of the crowd is under the age of 25 which is ‑‑ which is great. CPAC every year gets bigger and younger. I think that's really, you know, heartening for the future of the conservative movement. The buzz on the ground is all Santorum. It is all anyone is talking about. I talked to 20‑somethings, young kids in college or just out of college who are now really excited about Santorum and said, even admitted, had I asked a week ago, they would have said no, they didn't think he was electable a week ago. But after Tuesday and the momentum that he's building, they are giving this guy another look.

GLENN: He just spoke, did he not?

CUPP: Yes, he did.

GLENN: How did it go and what did he say?

CUPP: It went really well. He gave a broad, sort of sweeping speech, contrasting him with Mitt Romney and then also contrasting himself with Obama. He touched on the Catholic contraception issue.

GLENN: Okay, stop, stop. Stop, stop.

CUPP: What?

GLENN: Don't ever say it's a contraception issue again. You're playing into ‑‑ you're playing into the Obama administration. Change your language.

CUPP: Okay.

GLENN: And control the argument is what they always say. It is not about contraception. It is about freedom of religion.

CUPP: That's right.

GLENN: It is religious exercise. Okay. Go ahead.

CUPP: He talked about ‑‑

GLENN: Freedom of religion.

CUPP: Freedom of religion.

GLENN: And the Obama administration attack on it.

CUPP: And the Obama administration attack on it.

GLENN: What did he say about it?

CUPP: So funny you should ask. He made a really good point. It was not his main point but it was a cursory point and he said, look, is this really the point of health insurance to provide something that costs probably a couple of bucks a month? Is that really health insurance? This isn't about insurance. This is about a mandate. This is about growing government and it's government encroaching into the private sector, you know, infringing on your freedom of choice and religion. It was an interesting point and one that the crowd I think really sort of appreciated. And then of course, you know, he went on to touch on the three pillars of his campaign which are Obama is reaching too far into the manufacturing industry, too far into environmental issues, and too far into the economy and ‑‑

GLENN: I disagree with ‑‑ I disagree with all of those.

CUPP: Oh, okay.

GLENN: I may be off, I may be off ‑‑

STU: In what way?

GLENN: He says he's reaching too far. No. He's reaching into.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Too far? He's reaching too far into manufacturing? No, no. The president is reaching into them.

STU: He's doing a full cavity search of these issues.

GLENN: Get your damn hands out of the cookie jar. They don't belong there.

CUPP: Right. That he's in there at all ‑‑

GLENN: Yeah.

CUPP: ‑‑ is your problem.

GLENN: Is the point.

CUPP: It was a good speech. It was ‑‑ the crowd really liked it.

GLENN: So tell me about the Ron Paul support and the Gingrich support and the Romney support.

CUPP: You know, Romney still comes in the frontrunner. CPAC let's not forget is still very much an establishment event, you know? I mean, a lot is made of this being a movement conference, and it is that. But I mean, let's be honest. The establishment media comes, all the establishment candidates come, the GOP establishment, good politicians come and speak. So he still comes in with some excitement.

GLENN: I'll tell you that, you know, when I spoke there two years ago ‑‑

CUPP: Yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ it's split. There is the establishment that is desperately trying to hold on.

CUPP: Yeah.

GLENN: But there is ‑‑ CPAC is not your grandfather's political movement. It is not what, you know, all these ‑‑ you know, it's not what the Bill Kristols of the world, you know, tried to make it into.

CUPP: You know ‑‑

GLENN: Anymore.

CUPP: ‑‑ that's completely true. Like I said, it's very young. It is a conference, you know, geared towards students, toward young people. And so they have a lot of say in the kinds of events and speakers.

GLENN: What is ‑‑ tell me about the support for Ron Paul. What's happening on his front?

CUPP: Yeah. I mean, it's weird because CPAC is usually, you know, Ron Paulapalooza and you can literally not escape the Ron Paulites every year. This year it's actually been kind of muted. A, he's not speaking here. He's out campaigning. And B, I really think Santorum seems to have taken a lot of his, you know, young supporters away just because of the good week he's having. I met one Ron Paul supporter who was over 50. Not, you know, the traditional Ron Paul fan that you meet.

GLENN: You know, is there a possibility that Santorum could step into ‑‑ you know, I said before Obama was elected, I said if we elect Barack Obama, the next guy that America will rush to will be fat and kind of disheveled. And Chris Christie's not running. Ron Paul has this anti‑politician ‑‑ I mean, he's been in Washington forever but he still is this anti‑Washington kind of choice and it kind of makes him cool with the kids nowadays. Is it possible that Santorum kind of has that as well because he's kind of the nerdy kind of ‑‑ you know what I mean? He's ‑‑

CUPP: He is. He's ‑‑

GLENN: Father Knows Best kind of guy which is so anti‑ everything that's going on in the culture.

CUPP: I think you're absolutely right. I've been calling it geek chic, you know, with the sweater vest and the boyish hair and I mean, there is something there. And we are rejecting cool and charisma and, you know, shiny Hollywood this year, then I think that certainly plays to his advantage. That said, I'm not sure he's any less cool than any of the other Republican candidates. I mean, Mitt Romney ‑‑

GLENN: No, the Republicans.

CUPP: You know, Newt Gingrich, not cool.

STU: No?

GLENN: Really?

STU: Really?

GLENN: How is the Newt Gingrich support there?

CUPP: Radio silence. I have heard no one talking about Newt, which is weird. He's on the schedule like 7,000 times, appearing simultaneously to talk about his various movies and books and ideas and ‑‑

GLENN: I hate those guys that do that. They're always shilling something and always doing something and selling a book or a movie. Man.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

CUPP: He is ‑‑ yeah. So he is everywhere and nowhere, which is interesting. I just have not seen a lot of buzz about him. No one's really talking about, you know, his race and his speeches. They are just not focused on Newt Gingrich right now.

STU: S.E., we heard a lot in lead‑up to CPAC that there is going to be a presence from Occupy CPAC. Have we seen that?

CUPP: I didn't yesterday. Today is supposed to be the day when they come in and stab everyone. So ‑‑

GLENN: But with love.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: With love.

CUPP: They told us much, much like, you know, the Obama administration sort of tells our enemies when we're pulling out, when we're leaving, when it's safe to come in. They were kind enough to tell us when they plan to assault us all. So police presence is crazy today. I haven't really seen anything, you know, cropping up. But you will be the first to know if I do.

GLENN: All right. Thank you very much, S. E.

CUPP: All right.

GLENN: I mean, if you're going to get a stab wound, just make sure it's a flesh wound. We don't want to lose you.

STU: And keep it on camera for GBTV purposes.

GLENN: Yeah, you can die as long as we have it on tape.

CUPP: My thoughts exactly.

GLENN: Okay. Thanks a lot, S. E., appreciate it.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.