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

‘Not another dime’: Glenn reacts to Obama’s request for more money to quell border crisis

July 08, 2014
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Editor's Note: President Obama has since asked Congress for $3.7 billion to help cover the cost associated with detaining, caring for, and returning the influx of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children who have entered the U.S. in recent months. Get all the details via the Associated Press HERE.

--

Original story below:

President Obama is preparing to ask Congress for an additional $2 billion to deal with “humanitarian crisis” that will see some 60,000 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children cross the southern border this year alone. Meanwhile, Obama is not paying a visit to any of the border patrol outposts that have been overrun as a result of the influx in crossings even though he will be in Texas for fundraising events this week. On radio this morning, Glenn reacted to the latest insanity as he explained why not another dollar should be squandered.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

I’m glad to be back from vacation, but not glad to be looking at the news again… Let's talk about the border in different terms. These people who are turning the buses away in California – I don't know anything about them. I don't like the fact that people are now starting to form militias. I think that's a really colossally bad idea. But I understand your frustration, the people who are turning the buses away. I don't think that's necessarily a bad idea. However, I do think that people need to look at what they're doing and how they're doing it.

See, none of us are PR people. We're just getting the job done. And we don't really understand how powerful the media is, and how you're going to be painted. And I urge the people in any town, what you're seeing happening right now is what's called the ‘Bubba effect.’ We said this would happen, and I didn't know what the topic would be. I think you're seeing the beginning of it now. You're seeing people who, justifiably, are standing up.

These people say the border is more secure than ever. Is it? If fences don't work how come there are fences around the White House? How come there are gates? How come there is security? How come there are front doors on the White House? Because there is something valuable inside, and so we ask that you come through a security gate. We ask that you do that. If gates and fences don't work, then I demand that the gates around our airport be taken down, our fences be taken down, because they're apparently not worth anything. They don't do anything anyway.’ If someone is going to come in, they're going to come in anyway.’ Well then why do we have the gates and the fences around the airport?

I demand to know: If gates and security don't work, then why do I have to go through a metal detector any time I go in through a federal building? How come I have to present ID whenever I'm buying alcohol? These things do work, and everybody in the world knows it. You're paying for Homeland Security. You're paying for a border fence. You're paying for the border guards. You are paying for the detention centers. You are paying a personal cost in your hospitals. You're paying a personal cost when the hospital is overrun by illegal aliens who have no insurance and are coming here to have their babies and everything else. What happens is you pay a real cost. If you are sick, you're getting diminished care because we are having to pay for people who are not paying into the system at all.

You are paying a real cost with your children… There's a town in North Carolina that the kids now speak Spanish. There are more Spanish speaking kids than there are English speaking kids. Well, that's because the federal government has been busing people in. Well I've got news for you, that fundamentally changes the culture of my town. It now has to change the teachers. I have to change the way they think. If I like my school, they have fundamentally changed it because now it will not work the way it worked when everybody was speaking English. That is not judgment on the people that don't speak English. It is an excoriation of the United States government failing to do its most basic duty.

And so people are saying to themselves, ‘Well, what do I do?’ They don't hate the people who are coming from Guatemala. How can you possibly hate somebody? How can you possibly hate somebody that is coming from a war torn country? We are the ‘give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.’ That's who we are. We've always been that people. We are always the ‘bring the boat’ people.

The people of Honduras, why they're coming here? Do you know why that country is ripped apart? Because there was a coupe that our President refused to denounce. There was a coup that happened last year. The entire world said it was a coup, but we would not say it was a coup. We stood with the people that took over that country… I think it was 43 countries went to observe these elections, and 42 of them said, ‘This was totally criminal. This was not a fair election.’ The one country that said, ‘No, it looked good to us, the United States of America.’

Well, what's happened since? Fourteen members of the press have been killed. 35 or 37 of the opposition leaders have been killed or, more or less, disappeared since the election. Why do you think these parents are sending their kids here. And once again it is because the United States is medaling in other people's business. We are medaling in their business. We're picking and choosing again. We've done this to all of South America. Why do you think they're in such poverty? Because we have chosen their leaders for them for far too long.

Our arrogance is beyond recognition. And so you're sitting in a town in California or Texas or anyplace else and you're thinking to yourself, ‘What do I do? They're not coming into my town. I don't hate these people. I understand, but they have to understand the United States government is crippling my town. It is their children versus my children. And I want to take care of everybody's children. I will take care of these children. But they are not to stay here. They are to go back home.’

What do you think is happening on the border while we're all paying attention to this? I have not heard this anywhere. Is anybody talking about this besides TheBlaze? What is being smuggled or who is being smuggled into our country while we pay attention to the kids? Watch the other hand. What else is happening at the border? And they're talking about comprehensive immigration reform. Nobody is even willing to address the problem. And the problem is: The President of the United States, God bless him, is coming to Texas, and he will not go to the border. He will not meet with the governor of this state. This is worse than George Bush's Katrina. George Bush was actually trying to send help. He got in a plane and flew over the devastation and looked at it from the air. At least the man looked at it. At least the man was on the phone with the local authorities and with the governor every single day – sometimes many times a day.

So here is a situation where people are seeing this. And it has nothing to do with the kids. It has nothing to do with anything other than our government becoming lawless. And these poor people look at what we're trapping them into. We are trapping them into another country that is becoming lawless. They are trying to escape lawlessness.

My great uncle, Uncle Leo, he's an Italian. When the war broke out, they didn't know how it was going to end. And so the family took all their money – not just his family, the entire family took all of their money, and they sent Leo to the United States. Leo, you go, because we don't know what's going to happen to us. The family has to go on. Families have done that, as many of our own families have done that. That's what's happening at the border.

These countries are in peril. There is chaos and there is evil, and our government has supported it. And now they're coming here. So we have no malice toward any of these people, except those that wish us ill. I understand why a parent would do that. I thank God I can't relate to that because my family has never been in that much jeopardy. But I understand.

What I don't understand is the United States government not doing its job and that's why people are standing up at the border. That's why people are standing up in their hometowns and stopping these buses. But I want to talk to you about the right way to do it and the wrong way to do it. I understand why you want to do it. You're now being asked today for an additional $2 billion. For what? So you can feed people? So you can house people? So you can ship them to our cities and you can cripple our cities? No.

There is a better way. There is a better solution. But it requires people on all sides to come together and say, ‘Okay, let's just talk about the truth here.’ We have to take care of people, but the last thing I want to do is spend more money through the federal government – give them a dollar so they can take 30 cents on that dollar and spend it the way they want to spend it. Let's take care of this crisis ourselves while holding the feet to the fire.

Not another dime.

What have you done? You've lied to us every step of the way. No. We will take care of the humanitarian crisis, while we demand that you take care of the border crisis. It's corruption. And we are feeding it by sending them money every month, every two weeks in our check. We're feeding their corruption. Enough is enough.

Front page image courtesy of the AP

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

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 EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

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.