The story behind Obama’s doc “The Road We’ve Traveled”

March 16, 2012

Writer

The Obama campaign has enlisted the help of Hollywood to make a mini-documentary on how awesome Barack Obama’s Presidency has been. Of course, he’s been so horrific a president it makes sense he’d need to recruit people who make stuff up for a living to promote himself. Why’d they select that name? Glenn covered the story on radio this morning!

Read the transcript of the discussion below:

GLENN: Well, hello, America. Welcome to the program. There is a lot to discuss. There is some amazing, some amazing things that nobody could find, you know, that was a problem for the president in the new Tom Hanks documentary which I think is ‑‑ Tom, you must be so proud. You must be so proud. You're so neutral in this, you're making a campaign film, it really is a propaganda film for Barack Obama. The problem with it is the filmmaker said, you know, the only thing that we could really find bad about Barack Obama is that it was just so good. I've never ‑‑ huh.

PAT: Yeah, here's what he said with Piers Morgan the other night.

MORGAN: These documentary makers, you know, balance these movies with the negative as well as the positive. What are the negatives in your movie about Barack Obama?

VOICE: Well, I mean, the negative for me was there were too many accomplishments. I had, you know, 17 minutes to put them all in there but I think ‑‑

MORGAN: Oh, come off it. Come ‑‑ you can't say that with a straight face. Come on.

VOICE: I'm looking at you right now with a straight face. I mean, look, I mean ‑‑

MORGAN: The only negative about Barack Obama is there are too many positives is this

VOICE: That was a negative ‑‑ excuse me, a negative for me.

MORGAN: Oh.

VOICE: Which is, you know, I ‑‑ the challenge for me was I wanted to put more in there, I really did.

MORGAN: Are there any negatives in there?

VOICE: I think they're negatives in the sense that the challenges when you're trying to pass healthcare in a really toxic environment, they're negatives in terms of the opposition he's had.

PAT: That is Debbie Wasserman Schultz‑worthy right there.

STU: It is, that's almost Debbie Wasserman Schultz syndrome right there.

GLENN: After four years the only bad thing they found about their time in office was... it was just too good.

STU: I'm glad, too, they got the guy, Tom Hanks, who also brought us the documentary about how we were all just racists in World War II 6789 wasn't that the same?

GLENN: Yeah, it is.

STU: That's right.

GLENN: It is.

STU: All it was was about our Japanese racism.

GLENN: Yeah, mmm‑hmmm.

STU: Certainly nothing to do with, I don't know, Nazis and stuff.

PAT: And being attacked.

GLENN: Or being attacked.

STU: And being attacked.

GLENN: By the empire of Japan.

STU: It certainly had nothing to do with that.

GLENN: It had nothing to do with that.

STU: It was our racism.

GLENN: It was our racism.

STU: Uh‑huh.

GLENN: You know what? Tom Hanks, how do these guys dupe us? And, you know, I apologize to the family members, unless they're all communists, too, of Jimmy, Jimmy Stewart. Because I've always thought that Tom Hanks was our Jimmy Stewart. He couldn't be further from Jimmy Stewart. Jimmy Stewart and Hank Fonda, they were all decent Americans. They loved the country. They were decent, good Americans.

STU: I don't know that ‑‑ yeah, I mean, that last ‑‑ this thing, I mean, he's just a crazy Hollywood liberal which you'd sort of expect, though I feel like for a long time he wasn't out there making a big deal out of that.

GLENN: Oh, no. I mean, of course no.

STU: I don't know why it's changed.

GLENN: They all hide. I mean, look at Barack Obama. By the way, the name of this, the name of this documentary is The Road We've Traveled, right?

STU: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Could you do me a favor? Could you look up Stuart Chase? I believe Stuart Chase is the guy who coined the term The New Deal. I'm pretty sure. There's this book from the 1930s that was written by Stuart Chase and I thought of it this morning as we were thinking about the movie The Road We've Traveled, Stuart Chase, have you seen?

STU: It has been suggested he was the originator of the expression A New Deal.

GLENN: Okay. Progressive?

STU: I mean, I'm just reading a sentence here.

GLENN: I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. I think this guy was a big FDR guy. And he wrote this book called The Road We are Traveling and it was written in 1942 and he said we're on this road and after the war is finished ‑‑ he wrote this book in 1942. After the war is finished, we're going to have to clear up this mystery. But what we are now is no longer, it's not socialism, it's not capitalism. He just called it in his book X. And he said, we'll have to define it later, but it's X. We don't know what to call it yet.

But there's some major characteristics, and it's replaced our system of free enterprise and it will all over the world. He said we could call it communism, we could call it fascism, we could call it state capitalism. We just don't know what it is.

Now, he said ‑‑ try this on for size. This is what it is. This is how you would describe it: A strong centralized government.

Would you say we have that?

STU: Check.

GLENN: An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Got that? The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.

STU: Yeah. Jeez.

GLENN: The underwriting of employment through armaments or public works.

STU: Yeah, absolutely. Stimulus package and so much more.

GLENN: The underwriting of Social Security by the government.

STU: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care by the government. The use of deficit spending to than the these underwritings.

STU: We're 100% so far.

GLENN: The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.

STU: Obviously.

PAT: Been there.

GLENN: The control of foreign trade by the government. The control of natural resources. The control of energy sources.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: The control of transportation. The control of agricultural production. The control of organized labor unions. The enlistment of young men and young women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service, and ideologies consistent with those of the government authorities.

PAT: They're kind of working on that right now.

GLENN: Heavy taxation with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.

STU: (Laughing.) Is this ‑‑

GLENN: State control of communications and propaganda.

STU: This is like a mission statement for the Obama administration.

GLENN: May I? This book was not an indictment of it.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: It was saying "This is great." Remember this is the guy who coined the term The New Deal. This is the road we're traveling. Now, is it a coincidence? I'm sure it is. Is it a coincidence that anybody who has studied progressivism ‑‑ I mean, when I heard the name of this, this documentary, I mean, you were with me, Pat.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Immediately.

STU: Perked up right away.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I have that book. I had it wrong. I thought it was the Road We Traveled. The name of the book is The Road We're Traveling.

PAT: That makes so much sense because we were traveling that road then. Now we've traveled it.

GLENN: We've traveled it.

PAT: And now it's past tense. We're there. It's great.

GLENN: This is yet another ‑‑

PAT: It's amazing.

GLENN: Another knife in the back to anybody who doesn't know and a wink to anybody who does know the history. Everybody who ‑‑ anybody who is a Cass Sunstein, I mean, Cass Sunstein wanted this job because he's a fan of Edward Bernays. He knows. He salivated over this job. He couldn't wait. Those guys would absolutely know. I mean, remember when they were talking to us about Father Coughlin and they're calling me Father Coughlin and we're like, who the hell is Father Coughlin? They knew. They know these players. They know who Stuart Chase is. I really believe that whoever did this, they know exactly what they've done. They've said, "Yeah, yeah, it was X." They couldn't identify what it was. It's state capitalism.

See, we were trying to do all these things in 1942 and Stuart Chase says, "If we do it right... this is 1942: "If we do it right, if you get it right, you will not be able to turn this ship off of that course." Now the name of this movie is The Road We Traveled?

STU: Well, certainly by the standard they set up, they're definitely guilty. If you remember back in 2010, we did that rally, you know, Restoring Honor in Washington and they immediately accused us of stealing the speech date of Martin Luther King as if we had any idea.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: They immediately accused us of that. So by their standard clearly this has to be intentional.

GLENN: So who is Stuart Chase? Who's the guy who said he was going to change the free market enterprise, that this is state capitalism? Who was he? He was a Fabian Socialist, a member of the Fabian Society at Harvard, a friend of Walter Lippmann. Water Lippmann is the guy who every journalist in America has studied and hails as a hero. He was a eugenicist, a eugenics guy, he was a progressive, he was a member of the Woodrow Wilson administration.

STU: (Laughing.) Sometimes I feel like they do this stuff just to give you monologues.

GLENN: I mean, I ‑‑ I can't believe it.

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: That's amazing.

PAT: That's amazing. I mean, but that's what they do.

STU: So they were traveling it in 1942, this road, and now ‑‑

PAT: We've traveled it.

STU: ‑‑ we've finally traveled it.

PAT: Yeah, we've arrived.

GLENN: And he said the war is going to give us a chance to actually finish this and you won't be able to turn it off the course, you won't be able to turn it around. They did turn it around some ‑‑ somewhat. But now the question is can we turn it around now. The Road We've Traveled. The name of the book from 1942 is The Road We're Traveling. You decide. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, I'm sure it is.

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

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picking up his torch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two turning points, decades apart

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

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

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

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

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

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

A time for courage

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Muhammad to Marx

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

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

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

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

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep