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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

From radio: Santorum endorses Ted Cruz

May 24, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn welcomed Rick Santorum to the program to discuss what he has been up to since suspending his campaign for President as well as many of the local elections happening across the country. One race that Santorum expressed a strong interest in was the Texas Senate race, and on the radio show Santorum publicly endorses candidate Ted Cruz.

"Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States," Santorum said.

"I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues."

"And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now."

Read the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is on the phone. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning. How are you there, Mr. Beck?

GLENN: Very good, Rick Santorum.

SANTORUM: Good.

GLENN: You've got that bedroom voice like, I just woke up.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Like I'm well rested now.

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I'm actually out here on the West Coast and it's a little early this morning but, you know, we've been ‑‑ this is my third meeting so far, but I'll try to pick up the voice a little bit for you.

GLENN: Wait a minute. This is your third meeting this morning?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, yeah, third call.

GLENN: What are you doing now? Aren't you ‑‑ you lost, you know.

SANTORUM: Oh, sorry. I'll go back to bed.

GLENN: Shouldn't you be, like, relaxing and be like, "Yeah, I'm not doing anything. I'm in my ‑‑ I'm in my boxer shorts walking around the house. I got nothing going on."

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, that would be nice but if we ‑‑ no, it's been a ‑‑ it's been, you know, obviously a very different pace, you know, when you're on a campaign and doing the things that we had to do every day and to step back, but it's been an opportunity to spend a heck of a lot more time with the family, which has been a great thing and, you know, think about what we can do in maybe a different capacity to try to make a difference in this, as I said in every campaign speech I delivered. This is the most important election in the history of our country and just because I'm not out there on the frontline as a candidate doesn't mean that I shouldn't do like every other citizen of this country: Be as involved as I can in making a difference come November.

GLENN: May I ask you a question: We were talking on the air yesterday about Sarah Palin's endorsement, and everybody has endorsed now Orrin Hatch. Am I missing something? What happened with Orrin Hatch where all of a sudden now they're saying that he's a ‑‑ he's a small government "balance the budget" kind of guy?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have any insight on this?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I was surprised at that myself. I mean, you know, Orrin is a ‑‑ is a nice guy, he's a friend of mine, I served with him in the Senate. We had a very good relationship.

GLENN: Yeah, he's a nice man.

SANTORUM: But, you know, Orrin is not the kind of, you know, dynamic conservative leader that we really need, someone who's ‑‑ who's willing to get out there and take on the tough stances and really be a leader of a fundamental change in the way Washington does business. And that's what I'm looking ‑‑ when I look at candidates, because I haven't endorsed very many candidates going forward, and I've really taken the opinion that, you know, I'm going to step in races where I think you have really strong voices of people that you can trust to be principled politicians. And even if you look at two years ago, there's a lot of folks that got elected who became, let's just say not, not the kind of Tea Party reformers that ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

SANTORUM: ‑‑ they campaign to be. They get to Washington ‑‑ it's tough. I mean, I know it's very, very tough in that environment. But if now isn't the time, when we're facing fiscal Armageddon and financial Armageddon in this country, if you can't be tough now, when can you be tough?

GLENN: Can't.

SANTORUM: And that's why, you know, I've, you know, been scouring these candidates very, very closely and have really only chosen a few that I felt comfortable in accepting.

GLENN: Who have you ‑‑ who have you endorsed?

SANTORUM: Well, I endorsed Mourdock in Indiana. That was probably the ‑‑ that's the first person I stepped forward and endorsed. Again, I ‑‑

GLENN: Nice.

SANTORUM: Richard Lugar's a nice man, but just like Orrin Hatch. I mean, they've been there for 30‑plus years and ‑‑

GLENN: Part of the problem and you didn't get it done, you haven't been ‑‑

SANTORUM: Well ‑‑

GLENN: Like Rick, Jim DeMint was there and he has been fighting solidly. Solidly all these years trying to get things done and change the course. These guys have not been those pioneers.

SANTORUM: Yeah. I mean, and Jim is not a popular guy. I mean, let's just be honest about it. I mean, Jim is, within his ‑‑ the ranks of the United States, he is not a popular guy with his colleagues.

PAT: Hmmm.

SANTORUM: Because, you know, he holds their feet to the fire and he's endorsed people against, you know, folks that he has to see and work with every single day. That is hard, folks. I mean, that is really hard. And so I give him a tremendous amount of credit for it. And he's gone out and done what he thinks is right and I think that's what we have ‑‑ we have to look for in candidates, folks who can stand up. And I wanted to talk to you today because, you know, I felt like there's a campaign and a candidate that I've gotten to know a little bit more over the past couple of weeks and I've done a pretty thorough, thorough scouring of not just his record but the people that are around him and close to him, and I felt like I wanted to step forward today and support somebody and I thought, well, what better place to do that than to call the Glenn Beck show and tell the people about that.

STU: Is it Barack Obama?

SANTORUM: Gosh, you know, what a Blockbuster endorsement that would have been.

GLENN: Yeah, wouldn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: That would be. That would be a surprise. That would be newsbreaking.

SANTORUM: You'd jump off a Butte out here in Arizona, having done something like that. No.

GLENN: Who is it?

SANTORUM: Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States, and I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in ‑‑ on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues. And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, under ‑‑ in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now.

GLENN: Well, I tell you from your mouth to God's ears here on Texas, when is this primary? It's next week, isn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah, it's next week. And I sort of sat back and waited because this is a very interesting dynamic the way the race works in Texas. It's a ‑‑ you have to get 50% to win the election. If you don't, then the top two run off at a later date. And I was watching and looking and seeing how this race would develop and I think right now there's, you know, Ted has certainly emerged as the number two person to the lieutenant governor who has been the favorite and the person who's been spending enormous amount of money. And so I related Ted to another level, he's being outspent 4:1. I wish I was only outspent 4:1, but...

GLENN: (Laughing.)

SANTORUM: But still, you know, there's a kindred spirit when you're the underdog and being outspent and someone who's got the grassroots support and is out there working their tail off every day and, you know, that's the kind of candidate that I obviously, you know, that I was and I sort of gravitate to and so I'm pretty excited about being involved in his campaign and will be doing all I can between now and Tuesday to help him out.

GLENN: Right.

SANTORUM: And make sure that he is at least in that runoff. And who knows. Maybe he can surge ahead and pull off a big surprise and get to that 50%.

GLENN: Wouldn't that be nice. Rick, thank you very much.

SANTORUM: My pleasure.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again and stay safe. You're not done. I ‑‑ you're not done. Of course, you should be in your underpants right now and not be in all these meetings, you know, get a nap in because I don't think you're done with your service to the country by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks, Rick.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.