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

Oprah doubles down on the Emmett Till comparison

August 16, 2013
Wilson

Writer

It’s been quite a controversial few days for Oprah Winfrey and considering she’s pushing a new movie it’s probably by design. She turned heads last week by comparing Trayvon Martin’s death to Emmett Till, two very very different killings. She doubled down on that story today - Glenn offered a stern rebuke and a recent killing ignored by the media that more closely resembles what happened to Emmett Till.

During an appearance on promoting her new movie, Oprah said, “ The truth of the matter is Emmett Till became a symbol for those times, as Trayvon Martin has become a symbol for this time."

Needless to say, Glenn felt like the comparison was way out of line, and he delivered a scathing monologue on the matter during radio.

" Here's what Oprah Winfrey doesn't understand. That is a made‑up symbol. All of the facts, all of the facts show that Trayvon Martin is not Emmett Till. All of the facts show that race played no role in this... at all."

"So only the people who are trying to hype their shows on MSNBC or to hype their position as a race‑baiter like Al Sharpton, only those who are trying to make sure that their policies are never questioned because they need the race card, and they actually believe the things that Jeremiah Wright said, like the president, and those who are trying to sell and hock their movie. Those people need to have Trayvon Martin as Emmett Till."

Glenn said that instead the icons of race today should be Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian.

"Those names most likely you've never even heard of but because of a listener of this program who called me and challenged me to tell the story, I did earlier this week on television. This will be a little easier because I don't have the pictures to show you on radio. Newsom was 23, former standout baseball player working as a carpenter. Christian was 21, student at the University of Tennessee. They had been dating for about two months, and on the night of January 6th, 2007, they planned to watch a movie at a friend's apartment. When Janet didn't show up the next day, concerned family reported them both missing. It turns out the couple had made it to dinner, but when they arrived to the apartment complex where Christian's best friend lived, they were carjacked by multiple assailants. What followed was one of the most heinous, gruesome, and senseless hate crimes ever. Christian Newsom's evening started with a wonderful date with his new girlfriend, and now here he was, just a few minutes later, gagged with a sock in his mouth. His ankles were bound with his own belt. His hands were tied behind his back, and his face was wrapped with a bandana. His head was covered with a sweatshirt tied around his neck and then he was violently raped with an object and beaten."

"I can only imagine the horror that Christopher experienced when he was forced to walk barefoot on the nearby railroad tracks. There he was shot in the neck and in the back. But the first shots didn't kill him. He fell to the ground where he laid paralyzed. That's after the rape. The assailants stood over him, placed a gun against his covered head and fired, killing him execution‑style. But then they wanted to make sure that they mutilated the body. So they poured gasoline on his body and set him ablaze."

"But... the boyfriend was actually the lucky one. Because they came back for her. Channon Christian, who was taken back to the home of the assailants, where she was forced into a back room of the house. She was hogtied with strips of fabric from a bedding set and for several hours she endured brutal sexual assaults, repeatedly raped in just about every possible way imaginable. This story is so much worse if you go out and actually seek the courtroom documents. But you don't need to know more than raped in every way possible. She was kicked and beaten with several objects, including a broken chair leg. She suffered major wounds to her genital area. She had two major blows to the head. She was still alive and still conscious. Can you imagine what she was thinking? Bleeding, she was finally dragged out of the back room and into the living room. But the assailants realized that they had left DNA on the victim. So they tried to cover their tracks by pouring bleach all over her. Then, realizing that they had left DNA inside of her, they poured bleach down her throat. She was still alive. They then wrapped her body in a black garbage bag, her head in a white plastic grocery bag. They then dumped her body in a garbage can in the kitchen of the house, all of this while she was still alive. This woman who started hours before, just going out to have dinner with her boyfriend and over to her friend's house to watch a movie, now was upside down in a garbage can, her throat burning from bleach, and rape, beaten within an inch of her life, suffocating in a garbage can."

"There was no Al Sharpton on this case. Much to my shame, there was not even a Glenn Beck on this case. This happened in 2007. I had never heard of this story until a listener phoned in last week. There was no one, and still there is no one calling for social justice on this case. The suspects had all been convicted but then the original judge was discovered to have a drug addiction, which got him disbarred, which meant that the dirtbag attorneys went back and said, 'You know what? We can open your case again, open the door for the killers to try to abuse the justice system.' But one have been repeatedly pursuing retrials and appeals"

"It wasn't just guys that did this. There was a girl involved as well. The family has been dragged into court and had to relive this since 2007 over and over and over again."

"The killers were four black men and one black woman. Why is it nobody talked about this case? Do we have to have an Al Sharpton? Do we have to have a Jesse Jackson? Do we actually have to go and protest? Do we have to go and strong‑arm? Do we have to go to the media companies and say, why aren't you doing this, and we'll boycott you if you don't report on this story? Why is it you're not reporting on this story? Is it because it doesn't fit? Is it because it doesn't work to your advantage? I thought we were a country about equal justice. I thought we were a country about being fair. I thought we were a country that was trying to do the right thing."

"We're not the country that's trying to do the right thing. We are not that country. But the good news is we are those people."

"Oprah Winfrey, you disgust me. As a woman who has gone through hell and back and made it, and pulled yourself out by the bootstraps. You made it. You made it. You grew up with hate from your own race, you grew up with rape in your own race and you pulled yourself out. And the American people, both black and white, yellow and red, it doesn't matter the color, they saw you make it! They saw you overcome everything that you had faced, and we celebrated that! So much so that you make $70 million a year! So much so you're the most famous and most accomplished black woman in the history of America! You have your own network because we celebrated that you made it. You disgust me. Why are you telling everybody else they can't make it? Why are you telling us that white people are the problem?"

"Oprah, I'm sorry to point out to you, people are the problem. Doesn't matter what color they come in. Scumbags come in all colors. The scumbags in the 1950s that did that to Emmett Till, I don't think there's a dark enough, hot enough hell for those people."

"You tell the Emmett Till story and it breaks your heart. You tell the Emmett Till story and the thought of his mother opening up that coffin and part of his head falling out because insult upon injury when they put him in, they put lye in there with him to destroy his body. You can't be a functioning human being and not feel that."

"But vengeance belongs to the Lord alone. Justice will never be done here on Earth. But we can strive for it. And I weep for my country because I know God is just. And I weep for my country because we are on the verge and the precipice of just an unbelievable bright dawn. The whole world is starting to understand not politics, not bankers, not power, not houses, not cars, not fame, not stuff, but love. The whole world is on the verge of understanding true freedom, and just leave me alone. Just leave me alone and let me worship God in my own understanding."

"There are bad guys out there, but race has nothing to do with it."

"Oprah, I choose to be the person that America thought you were. I choose to be the person that will overcome the bad things in my life. Nobody's going to tell me what I can and can't do and who I am. I know who I am, and I will not be beaten down by the system, and I will hold those people up that feel the same way, no matter what color. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free. Give me the ones that you have told 'You'll never make it,' send them to me, the tempest tossed. Because I hold my lamp beside a golden door."

Patriotic uprising—Why 90% say Old Glory isn’t just another flag

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day began as a political payoff to Socialist agitators

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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.