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

Glenn interviews FRC shooting witness General Jerry Boykin

August 17, 2012
Wilson

Writer

The media has gone AWOL on the shooting by an apparent deranged leftist at the Family Research Council in Washington DC this week. Friend of the show (ret) General Boykin was at the building when the incident occurred and gives an incredible account of what happened. It's a great story of heroics - so why is the media ignoring it?

Transcript of interview:

GLENN: I think -- we think that that's only relevant because they think that's his plan -- that's where he learned what he was going to do with GM, but that's another story. We have a friend that works at the Family Research Council, Lieutenant general Jerry Boykin. He is on the phone. There was a tragedy this week, as you may know. A gunman came in, shot a security guard, and, of course, the press hasn't stopped talking about it. Oh, no. Wait. They did. This one is -- this one is significant because the shooter was a volunteer. This is a leftist -- this is a political terrorist strike. General Jerry Boykin with us. General, how are you, sir?

GENERAL BOYKIN: I'm good, Glenn. It's good to be with you. I'm not quite sure why you played that clip from the President in this segment that I'm on.

GLENN: I really think it's -- I really think it's because -- it's his plan for the economy, but help me out on -- you were -- you were actually there when the shooter came?

GENERAL BOYKIN: I was. It was about 10:46 on Wednesday morning. He walked in the lobby, set a backpack down in front of the guard desk and then reached in his backpack. Fortunately this guard who was actually the building manager but kind of dual roles as a guard, realized something was up and got out of his chair and approached the man and just as the man pulled a pistol, pointed it at his head, this gentle giant of a guard reached up and grabbed the gun and he shot him -- the gunman shot our man Leo Johnson in the wrist but with one arm, Leo wrestled this man to the ground and took his gun away from him and what a hero this guy was. He saved a lot of people and there's no question, Glenn, this guy's intent based on the fact that he had about 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A bags was this was going to be a mass murder on our -- a large scale.

GLENN: You actually talked to the gunman?

GENERAL BOYKIN: I listened as the gunman lay on the floor talking to police and he said, I don't like the policies here and, you know, he -- in fact, he stated that to the guard, as well. So, yeah, it was -- there was no question what his motive was. He tied us to Chick-fil-A and I think the scenario is -- it doesn't take much imagination, Glenn. He was going to go through and kill as many people as he could and drop Chick-fil-A bags at every dead body to send a signal that he was reacting to the -- our stance on traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman.

GLENN: Well, I think the way to make sure everybody understands your point is to be a mass murderer. The media is reacting to this in their stereotypical way. General, what is the way -- how do we change this? They're ignoring the Black Panthers who have come out and said, Throw bombs into nurseries, kill crackers, as they would say, and everybody is ignoring it. The press even makes us into conspiracy freaks for bringing is up. We bring up the left is the one that always has caused 90% of the shootings and the political statement, kind of bombings, et cetera, et cetera, the terror throughout American history it's generally from either crazy people or the left and how do we get this message out? Who do we do, General?

GENERAL BOYKIN: Well, Glenn, it's even worse than that. It's worse. I mean, not only are they ignoring this and don't want to deal with it but CNN the morning after in an interview with Brian Brown from the National Organization For Marriage actually tried to justify the hate group label that was placed on the Family Research Council by this anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-sematic Marxist organization called the Southern Poverty Law Center which is a -- just an evil group of people and so they actually tried to justify this hate crimes -- I mean this hate group label that they gave. What do we do? Well, CNN's ratings are already in the tank, as well as most of the mainstream media and what we do is continue to do what you are doing with both your radio program, as well as your broadcast, and other organizations like yours, we keep putting the truth out and it is starting to resonate and I think that's the reason that the popularity of your program is growing is Americans are actually starting to look for truth. You know, Glenn, it's important to remember that in a recent survey 80% of Americans surveyed supported Dan Cathy and his stance on traditional marriage but the mainstream media is never going to report that and the Southern Poverty Law Center is right in the middle of this culture war and I think what you're doing and what others like you are doing, particularly with talk radio and with nontraditional means of communication is so critical to keeping the truth out for the American public today.

GLENN: Okay. You made quite a statement about the Southern Poverty Law Center. Most people don't even know who they are because -- they're quoted all the time by all of the news networks. They're taking a look at all of the hate groups and monitoring all hate crimes. They have put the Black Panthers in the category of a right wing extremist group on the same list as FRC and the same list as David Barton. Can you -- who is the Southern Poverty Law Center? Who are they?

GENERAL BOYKIN: Well, first of all, I've already given you my label for them and they are -- in fact, they are very similar to the ACLU. They're a group of lawyers, as well as Marxists who have, in fact, raised an awful lot of money which we understand is being kept offshore and they go after every liberal cause in America. They are -- they -- in fact, they just had a big meeting this week with the Muslim political action committee and that is a very anti-sematic organization and these people are dangerous, they are evil, and my question is, Glenn, who are they to have any authority to declare anybody a hate group? And, remember, they also called Hitler right wing, as well. I don't mean SPLC but, you know, people today on the left refer to Hitler as right wing and compare conservatives to Hitler. Well, Hitler was anything but right wing. Remember, he was the nationalist socialist party.

GLENN: Are you more optimistic, less optimistic, or about the same as you were a year ago for the health of the nation?

GENERAL BOYKIN: I am so concerned, Glenn. I must tell you, I'm angry. I'm really angry. I'm angry because people like you and the FRC and others are standing up and speaking for what I believe is the majority of Americans, while Americans, you know, sit at home and cheer you on but they're doing very little to actually get involved in this culture war and I'm optimistic that people are starting to wake up and as tragic as this event was, Glenn, I think that it is just another way that people are being shaken and people are being brought to an awareness that we are losing our country and the average American that stands on traditional values, the average Christian that believes in a biblical world view have got to get involved and they've got to put their time, their effort, their money, and their speech behind what is happening here. So, thank you for what you're doing.

GLENN: Well, General, you are one of my favorite people because you never mince words and you've taken a strong stand to your own peril for a very long time. You're a personal hero. Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin. Our best to the Family Research Council and everybody. How is everybody doing there?

GENERAL BOYKIN: They are doing well. Leo is an extraordinary hero and he's doing quite well. I was with him when he came out of surgery; and the people at FRC are tough warriors, Glenn. We are not going away. We're not going to change our position. We're going to stand firm because we do believe that we are speaking for the majority of Americans who still maintain very traditional values.

GLENN: Thank you very much, General. I --

GENERAL BOYKIN: Thank you, Glenn. God bless you.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.