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

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

September 27, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On Thursday's radio show, Glenn invited Pastor Jim Garlow onto the show to discuss Pulpit Freedom Sunday.The event is designed to raise awareness about the fact that pastors are not allowed to speak up about political issues from the pulpit without losing their tax-exempt status. Garlow and other pastors want to fight back against the idea that politics have no place in discussions within the church. You can catch the whole interview in the clip above from radio. Read more on these issues at TheBlaze.

 

Read a Rush transcript of the interview below:

GLENN:  Pastor Jim Garlowe is a church in San Diego.  This is a church that has stood in California and has stood against all odds and the attacks on this church are just staggering.  They have tried to put this church out of business, and  they're not going to step down. He is here because he is seeing over and sheparding a program.  How many years have you been doing this?  

 

           VOICE:  This is only my second year. 

 

GLENN:  What the government is telling you that you can't get involved in politics that is an out‑and‑out unconstitutional lie.  They want it to be challenged in court because they know it's unconstitutional. 

 

VOICE:  Years ago Lyndon Baines Johnson returned from Texas angry at two businessmen.  They opposed him through 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.  He was going through the Senate was an overhaul of the tax code.  He asserted a few words called the Johnson Amendment.  They didn't have churches in mind.  They had just had these two guys he was mad at. Even the Internal Revenue Service doesn't know.  So the result over all of these years pastors have backed away from fear, and people in the pew have bought into the cultural myth of separation of church and state.  So pastors aren't speaking out on issues. They bought into a cultural myth thinking as pastors we wouldn't speak politically if we got the tax exemption.  The tax exemption comes from our founding fathers.  Knowing if the government can tax and they can control and the government can destroy.  Based upon that separation, there have been no taxation of churches.  There should be no government intrusion into the pulpit and so an entire movement has developed. 

 

GLENN:  This is really important because of everything that we're facing now with the President, this week coming out and laying the groundwork for no blasphemy laws for Islam or any religion. Uh‑huh.  The way we are moving and the press and freedom of speech is overrated, and the rest of the world doesn't agree with it.  And America needs to grow up, and starts moving the way of the rest of the world.  It is if we control the speech of pulpits.  The pulpits are the most important thing.  Jim I know when we first met it was right before Restoring Honor in Washington D.C..  you were one of the few that stood up, and you were bold at the time, and I hadn't seen a lot of the bold preachers or priests or rabbis.  They were being quiet.  Now a lot of them are standing up, and they're not being quiet.  Because they know it's over if they don't. 

 

VOICE:  It is over.  It's changed dramatically even the last few years.  I'm amazed what has happened in the area of religious liberty.  Those that are discerning know you can have religious liberty and have radicalists coming at the same time in the nation.   That line is sliding very rapidly. 

 

GLENN:  I know.  That's what a church is for to tell you what the parameters are.  I don't need somebody to tell how to vote.  To tell me the standard God's standard that he holds.  And then I can Judge myself.  But you can't even talk about the standard.  We're moving to a place where you can't talk about that standard because it's political or racist or sexist. 

 

VOICE:  The Internal Revenue Service would say that we can.  Now that the people in the pew oftentimes have this wrong understanding pastor if you're going to speak that way I'll find myself another church.  Consequently alliance of religious liberty, and hand selected 33 pastors in 2008 to intentionally challenge the Johnson Amendment.  The Johnson Amendment says we cannot oppose or endorse a candidate directly or indirectly.  So pastors are afraid of it.  They don't want to lose their tax exemption.  They recorded their sermons, and sent them to the court.  There's a Damocles sword threatening pastors if you do this.  They sent in their sermon nothing happened.  In 2009 84 pastors exercised their constitutional rights but violated the Johnson Amendment which we believe is unconstitutional.  And they sent their sermons. Nothing happened.  The next year 2010 100 pastors did it.  Last year 539 pastors did it, this year around 1,100 have signed up.  We anticipate it will be around 1,500 or more masters. 

 

GLENN:  If you're a pastor.  You go to a parish and you want your priest to be involved in this what do. 

 

VOICE:  They go to pulpitfreedom.org.  And October 7th is pulpit freedom Sunday.  Most of us are doing it in solidarity October 7th.  They can sign up at pulpitfreedom.org. This applies to a liberal left wing church.  It was replies to everybody.  We say there should be no governmental intrusion.  They monitor our speech to see what we're saying.  We encourage people to go to pulpitfreedom.org. 

 

           GLENN:  If they do this, and the Internal Revenue Service decides to go after them. 

 

VOICE:  There are 2200 attorneys prepared to defend us pro bono. It used to be the church would roll over and play dead.  If a church lawyers up, the Internal Revenue Service strings it along for a couple of years and then say we're going to close your case, and just don't do it.  The alliance defending freedom is this group of attorneys saying this is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment.  We're absolutely making it nationwide very open posting our names and sending in our sermons saying sue us, so we get this to court, and get this defined and taken care of. 

 

GLENN:  You don't have to worry as a church you won't have to worry about being strung along.  The attorneys will do it. 

 

VOICE:  There are attorneys all across America. 

 

GLENN:  Are you going to be saying to vote for one person. 

 

VOICE:  I will walk through the biblical principles, and where the candidates stand on the issues. 

 

GLENN:  There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

VOICE:  Any follower of Jesus Christ would not want to vote for a candidate that is defying biblical principles. 

 

GLENN:  I don't have a problem.  I do have a problem vote Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.  Not a legal problem.  I don't want my pastor saying that. 

 

VOICE:  If somebody doesn't wan tto hear it that they can go to another church.  We don't want the ‑‑ the issue is who decides what a pastor says? Is it going to be the state ultimately or that pastor and the church.  We're contending ‑‑ we're not even saying a pastor has to endorse or condemn a candidate. 

 

GLENN:  The problem is that our churches have stopped saying if you believe the Bible, I mean ‑‑ my daughter she went with a friend to a Catholic Church that's run by a priest who is ex communicated by the Catholics.  And I said did he start his own church.  That's not a Catholic Church.  That's not a Catholic Church.  I don't have a problem with you disagreeing.  You want to do stuff.  When you go to church I don't understand the people that don't buy into it.  Why are you there? What are getting out of it if you can't get somebody standing up there here's the principle, and here's how we apply it, and live your life according to these rules.  Otherwise what are you doing? How many people do you think go to church who're just are going there because I don't know ‑‑ I don't even know. 

 

VOICE:  We're told only 9% of the people in the pew of a church know how to apply the scripture to life.  And in other words have a biblical world view.  9 out of 10 do not.  Are any of our communities more righteous or less righteous.  We had this privilege in America for 166 years until it was taken away in 1954, and it was working very good at that time. 

 

GLENN:  Look at our world.  Some things have gotten better, but a lot of things have gotten worse. 

 

VOICE:  Think what would happen if 350,000 churches would have been saying to the electorate we should be choosing the people to represent us in Washington D.C. thou shalt not steal from future generations.  That's a moral biblical issue.  Our nation is in economic suicide because of a failure to follow scriptural principles.

 

GLENN:  Go to pulpitfreedom.org. It has to be reversed.  It has to be put to rest.  Pulpit freedom.org. Sunday October 7th.  Make sure that your church is participation.  Quickly how is your wife. 

 

VOICE:  She's doing well.  We're moving on this cancer journey.  It's come back seven times in five years.  It's been a long walk here.  We're moving forward.  She's having some good days recently. That's why I'm able to be here. 

 

GLENN:  You want a good pastor or good church it's the Garlowes in San Diego. 

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.

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.