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

James Dobson tells Glenn: IRS targeted me

May 20, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Prominent evangelical Christian leader James Dobson joined the radio program today and revealed the the IRS targeted one of his organizations as well. When he had been stonewalled by the IRS for months and finally called to get an update, what he was told was shocking. Dobson told shared his story with Glenn today on the radio show.

TheBlaze has more on this story HERE.

Transcript of the interview is below:

GLENN: Over the weekend Billy Hallowell from TheBlaze broke the story about Dr. James Dobson. This is some disturbing stuff. Dr. Dobson is on with us now. James, how are you, sir?

DR. DOBSON: I'm doing fine, Glenn, and thanks for having me on. This is such a critically important issue.

GLENN: Tell me, tell me what happened with you.

DR. DOBSON: Well, as you know, it's been admitted now that the IRS profiled ‑‑ that's my term for it but I think that fits ‑‑ about 300 or more conservative organizations. You referred just a minute ago to the TEA Party and the smoking gun there, but it's not limited to the TEA Party. The it's limited to evangelical organizations, conservative Christian organizations.

GLENN: Jewish organizations.

DR. DOBSON: I would imagine conservative Catholic organizations. And what they did was to harass and intimidate and delay their applications for nonprofit status, especially 501(c)(4) organizations. Billy Graham's ministries was part of it, Concerned Women for America and then, of course, the TEA Parties and who knows who else is on the 300 ‑‑ the list of 300. I can just tell you that our organization was among them. Family Talk Action applied for a 501(c)(4). We already have a (c)(3), but applied for a (c)(4) in September of 2011 and that started the process which took 19 months to come to fruition. Some of that time was spent by us answering questions, questions that I don't remember ever being asked before but our Family Talk Action attorney finally called to find out what the delay was. He couldn't get through and then on March the 19th of this year he got a call from a female agent named R. Medley and she called to tell us what the holdup was. And she said that Family Talk Action was ‑‑ and by the way, Glenn, I think we are the first one where the IRS had admitted, or at least one I know of that has admitted what was the problem with getting these approvals. She said that Family Talk Action was a partisan rightwing group because we represented only one point of view, she said that we were a political organization because we had criticized the president on occasion. And then she said that we were not an educational organization because it doesn't represent all views. Not educational, Glenn. I don't want to be self‑serving here but, you know, I have an earned Ph.D. from the University of Southern California in child development. I was a professor of pediatrics for 14 years. I've written 80 books. I've done 8,000 radio programs in 35 years, and I'm not educational. But it really all ‑‑

GLENN: Just so long as you understand that.

DR. DOBSON: It all comes down to this: Medley implied ‑‑ or this is the implication of what she was saying: That Family Talk Action was not worthy of a 501(c)(3) status, and she did say that they were probably not going to approve us and it was because we don't devote airtime that we have paid for to those that represent a different world view and opposing perspectives.

GLENN: You don't have to do that.

DR. DOBSON: And then this Ms. Medley asked our attorney if we want to do revise our application, and he said, "No. If we have to litigate, we will." And nine days later they approved our application. So that was our experience, and I'll bet it's been duplicated many, many times over.

GLENN: Did you say anything at all while you were going through this? Did you say any of this on the air?

DR. DOBSON: Say what? What the IRS had done?

GLENN: Yeah, what was going on.

DR. DOBSON: Yes. Today's program, Family Talk, and tomorrow's program. Tomorrow I'm interviewing Michele Bachmann and today I interviewed Penny Nance.

GLENN: No, but I mean ‑‑

DR. DOBSON: And they are alarmed about it too.

GLENN: During the scandal, during ‑‑ while you were waiting for it, did you ever mention that you were still waiting for the IRS?

DR. DOBSON: No. We obviously didn't want to rock the boat. We wanted to get the approval and so we didn't talk about it because ‑‑

PAT: I bet everybody was like ‑‑

GLENN: We were.

PAT: Everybody was lying that.

GLENN: We did exactly the same thing because we were doing some things as well and had some ‑‑ you know, I had an IRS audit and we ‑‑ you know, everybody said, Glenn, shut your mouth until it's over and you don't want to ‑‑ you just don't want to ‑‑ and that should tell you something. I mean, this is like Muslim extremism. You know, shut your mouth, don't say anything because they'll make it worse. I mean, that should tell you everything you need to know about the organization.

DR. DOBSON: It certainly does. And we knew. We knew what we were dealing with. We had no qualms, no questions about what the Obama administration thinks about conservative Christian organizations but, you know ‑‑

GLENN: So where was this R. Medley, how did you get roped up with her in Cincinnati (sniffing)?

DR. DOBSON: Well, our attorney called and asked for an update and he couldn't ‑‑ or he called to ask for an update and he couldn't get through. And finally she called back responding to him ‑‑

GLENN: Wait. What location was she ‑‑

DOBSON: I've never met her, I don't know her, but she called back and was amazingly candid with us.

GLENN: What location was she at? James, where was she, in what city? Do you know?

DR. DOBSON: You know, I really don't know. I assume that it was Cincinnati, but my attorney would have to answer that. I haven't been involved in any of the conversations because you let attorneys handle these things and that's what we did.

GLENN: Okay. Dr. James Dobson ‑‑

DR. DOBSON: Charles Krauthammer, a commentator on Fox News said something the other night that I thought was very telling. He said that this IRS scandal is the most damaging of all because the American people know the enormous power of the taxing authority and they're frightened by it. And, of course, chief justice John Marshall said in 1819 that the power to tax is power to destroy. So when you add to this the fact that the IRS is going to be the implementer of ObamaCare, they will know not only everything about our money, everything about our money, our salaries, everything, what we spend our money on, everything, but also know everything about our health. And you put those two things together and that is enormous power.

GLENN: Yeah. Dr. James Dobson, thank you so much and we'll talk to you again. Stay safe.

DR. DOBSON: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet.

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?

Trump's mineral deal with Ukraine: What you need to know

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.

Mark Carney's bombshell victory: Is Canada doomed under his globalist agenda?

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.