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 speaks to Brandon Stewart of the Millennial Choir

August 23, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Earlier this year, Glenn, Pat, and their families attended a performance of the Millennial Choir and Orchestra led by Brett and Brandon Stewart and were absolutely blown away by what they saw.

“This is the most amazing thing I've heard. They are better than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. We were riveted the entire night,” Glenn said of the group on radio this morning. “Now, here's the amazing thing. This was an entirely volunteer orchestra and choir, and it starts ages 4 and up. It is the best experience you've ever heard… They're from California and Arizona. I'm thinking all the way through, I'm thinking, oh, my gosh. If they lived in Dallas, if they worked in Dallas, I'd do quarterly shows with them. My mind is just racing. And I'm thinking, I've got to go backstage and beg these guys to move to Dallas. Well, at the end of the concert they say, ‘And we have an announcement. We're going to be starting a new choir in Dallas.’ You've got to be kidding.”

Glenn got a chance to go backstage and meet the brothers, who are both Julliard graduates, after the show, and with the organization now expanding to Dallas, it sounds like we can expect to see some pretty exciting collaborations in the future. Auditions for the Dallas area will be held in the coming weeks and all information can be found at Millennial.org.

This morning, Glenn spoke to the Millennial Choir's conductor Brandon Stewart about the history of the choir and orchestra, the standards he and his brother seek to maintain, and the process of composing a new American classic.

Read a transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: And I wanted to bring Brandon, Brandon Stewart. He is the conductor of the Millennial choir. It is all faiths, all ages, and it is volunteer and they are having tryouts in four different states, Brandon; is that right? They start next week?

BRANDON STEWART: Yeah, that's right.

GLENN: Okay. Happening next week near Los Angeles, California; in Phoenix; in Provo, Utah; and Dallas, Texas. And you can bring your whole family. I was just meeting with a guy and he was watching last night. This morning, Robert, he was there, his whole family, and he's wildly talented. And he said, man, he said, I know my daughter, she's too young, but she wants to. And I said, Robert, your whole family ‑‑ first of all, she's not too young, and your whole family could join and you could make this a family kind of thing. But let me just ask you, Brandon. You have standards, and they are different than the world's traditional standards for volunteers. For instance, give me ‑‑ go in your code of conduct. What is that?

BRANDON STEWART: The code of conduct for our singers, it sounds kind of scary that it's called code of conduct, but really it's just a way for us to encourage our participants to have upstanding values and to represent themselves in decent ways ‑‑ in a decent way as they represent Millennial choirs and orchestras. We want this to be something that is a positive impact in the community and so we ask them to be decent people. And then in addition to that, our code of conduct requires that they are committing to the rehearsals and they are going to work hard and basically do what we encourage them to do musically so that we can be, you know, one cohesive unit as a musical organization.

GLENN: Brandon, how do you do ‑‑ because I went and I saw you in Phoenix because you're actually working on Man in the Moon 2, and I want to talk a little bit about that if we ‑‑ if we have time. How do you ‑‑ how do you get teenagers? Because I watched you rehearse teenagers, and they were on the edge of the seat as they are rehearsing. There wasn't any fooling around, there wasn't any ‑‑ I mean, it was discipline city and it was amazing to watch. I don't mean it was discipline city like it was a, you know, torture chamber. You didn't have to discipline. They self‑disciplined. How do you ‑‑

BRANDON STEWART: That's right. That's right. They ‑‑ these kids, first of all, are just awesome. The teenagers are one of the most fun groups that we have to work with. I think that the formula there is that we have a mutual respect for one another, and we have a lot of fun when it's time to have fun. And when it's time to really work and crank down, we do that. I think that they love the music because we hand‑select music for all of our choirs and orchestras that is exciting, that's motivating, that's challenging and ‑‑

GLENN: Really challenging.

BRANDON STEWART: That praises God. They have a reverence for what they're singing about, which I think is unique, especially today.

GLENN: Give me the qualifications and if anybody is interested in any of those cities. Give me the qualifications of what you're looking for and what they ‑‑ should they expect at a tryout.

BRANDON STEWART: Absolutely. First of all, our motto is all ages, all faiths, one voice. And you mentioned that earlier. But we welcome people of all different walks of life from the community and pretty much all ages. I mean, it starts at age 4 and goes up.

GLENN: Hang on. You have atheists in the orchestra, if I'm not mistaken, right? You have people who don't believe in God?

BRANDON STEWART: We do. We have all kinds.

GLENN: So ‑‑

BRANDON STEWART: All different types. So...

GLENN: You don't have to go to a church or anything like that. You can ‑‑

PAT: But you ostracize them, right? You ostracize the atheists?

GLENN: Well, they were sitting in the atheist section, yeah.

PAT: They're shunned.

GLENN: Yeah.

BRANDON STEWART: I mean ‑‑

GLENN: They're forced to ‑‑

BRANDON STEWART: You know, we'll sing about God and so if it's an atheist who's comfortable singing about God, then they are more than welcome to come. So...

GLENN: Right. Right.

BRANDON STEWART: But the auditions are for the adults only. The children and youth do not have to audition. They just register online at millennial.org. And the adults need to have some sort of musical experience or musical background or at least be able to sing.

GLENN: Okay. So Brandon, I sang all through high school, but I haven't ‑‑ I haven't sung except at church since. That's enough?

BRANDON STEWART: Yeah, I think you'd be surprised at how many people fit that description that are in our choirs already.

GLENN: And so what do they have to ‑‑ do they have to prepare something for you, or what are you going to do when you get there?

BRANDON STEWART: Yeah, all the information is online and we have auditions coordinators that help them prepare. And really it's one of the shortest auditions of their life. And they will come in and sing a little bit or play a little bit and we'll ask them to play some things and prepare some excerpts from some music or just a hymn or whatever and then they will sing, we'll get to know them briefly and then we let them know. So it's very simple.

PAT: I can play Mary Had a Little Lamb on a touchtone phone. Is that something you're interested in?

GLENN: Don't take Pat. Don't take Pat.

PAT: Because I think I can bring that to the table for your choir.

GLENN: Don't take Pat. Brandon, why did you ‑‑ why did you guys start this?

BRANDON STEWART: It initially was not our plan to do this. We felt inspired to do it and we didn't quite know why other than the fact that we knew that something like this was needed in the area that we were at in California and so we started it. And then it just kind of went from there. There were people in different areas in the nation, and there still are people all over who are requesting this type of thing in their community. And I think that the reason it's so needed is because, like you said earlier, it's including all families and people of all different faiths and walks of life. And music speaks the universal language. It's unifying the community, and it's such a positive experience for these people.

GLENN: I will tell you that I ‑‑ and I've told you this, Brandon, but let me tell the audience. That I was sitting in that crowd and I listened, and as you played songs, I had so many feelings, but one of them was this needs to go all over the country. These have to pop up all over the country because of the bright, bright light that, it's an explosion of light. And I couldn't believe when you guys said that was exactly what you guys were trying to do. I just couldn't believe it. I know it to be true, and I know it to be right. The Stewart brothers came with me to New York a few weeks ago because they had been ‑‑ you had been trying to talk to your brother ‑‑ or talk your brother into writing something about America, a new American piece.

BRANDON STEWART: Yes.

GLENN: And for about at the same time as I had been walking around going, "There's got to be a new American piece," and the way you guys described it is exactly the way, what I was describing of what to avoid and that is "The Constitution is great! We the people..." and it would just be awful.

BRANDON STEWART: (Laughing.)

GLENN: And so I brought these guys into the library and started telling them stories about America and they are now setting a story for Man in the Moon called The Journey. They are setting this to music. And if you've ever wanted to be a part of some of the things that we do, and I think this one will be one for the history books. If you've ever wanted to be a part of this creative process, this is the way to do it because it will be this orchestra and this choir that helps us put this new piece, this American piece of music and the American story to music in the coming year. And we have only one piece of music that is if I understand, and it is phenomenal, just phenomenal. And I am proud to even know these guys. But if you want to ‑‑ if you want to try out and audition, again it's in Los Angeles, Phoenix, Provo, Dallas. It's Millennial ‑‑ is it just millennial.org?

BRANDON STEWART: Millennial.org, that's right.

GLENN: Millennial, so you also have to be a speller. You can't ‑‑ millennial.org. And when do they start? When do the tryouts start?

BRANDON STEWART: They start next week and in all four locations. All the dates are online on the calendar.

GLENN: Okay. Millennial.org. You will not be disappointed. And I ‑‑ we hope to be doing some ‑‑ many more things on television with the orchestra and we're working on something now called the performance that I think you're going to ‑‑ you'll just be ‑‑ you'll just love and want to be a part of. So please, if you have any talent, an instrument or music and your family, you can go as a single or you can go as a family and try out. Millennial.org. And I would recommend highly that if you're looking for some standards, some quality, and something that will uplift and do tremendous good that you can't even understand until you sit and listen to this choir, go there and be a part of this. Millennial.org. Brandon, thank you. We'll see you soon.

BRANDON STEWART: Thank you.

GLENN: You bet. Bye‑bye. Tremendous, tremendous people.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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.