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: The "most dangerous" period of U.S. history since the Civil War begins tomorrow night

November 03, 2014
Wilson

Writer

After tomorrow's election, we could be headed for the most dangerous period of history since the Civil War. All signs point to the Republicans regaining complete control of Congress, setting the stage for a battle between the president and the GOP over immigration reform signed into law with the president's pen and paper. The Democrats will be able to sit back and appear to the moderates, and at the forefront will be the next President of the United States: Hillary Rodham Clinton. How does it happen? Glenn laid out the prediction on radio Monday morning.

Who wins tomorrow's election? I will tell you that I do not believe it will be you that wins. It may be the Democrats, it may be the Republicans. But it definitely will not be you. And let me explain exactly what I mean by that.

I believe the Republicans are going to win tomorrow. The Republicans are going to win control of the Senate and the House. And before people who might be in this audience start to cheer, let me explain why that isn't necessarily a good thing, even for the Republicans.

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for the Republic, because I don't believe the Republicans represent the Republic anymore. They are progressive and they will do exactly what they want. In fact, if Mitt Romney has his way, what they're going to do is immediately forward comprehensive immigration reform. And this will just be a watered-down version of what the Democrats will want to do. And you'll get all of the credit for that. Let me just talk politics here for a second. Republicans, you're going to get all the same kind of credit that you got for the Civil Rights Act. And congratulations on that, because that was yours. And you're seeing how well that's working out for you now, don't you?

So what's going to happen? The Republicans think that they're going to continue to play the same game that has always been played in America. And they think that they're going to be able to come in and actually turn the tide here. They think that they're actually going to make a difference, because they're going to come in with their reform bill and they're going to come in and they're going to start holding people responsible. But they're going to be moderate, too, you know. They're not going to be too crazy. They're not going to be like those Tea Party people.

Meanwhile, the president is standing alone. Have you noticed that? The president -- there's nobody asking the president, hey, could we get the president to speak? Nobody is showing up for the president. The Democrats don't want to see the president. So what happens?

Try this out for size: Tomorrow the Republicans win. They win control of House and Senate. The [Democrats] are out. The Democrats begin to blame the president and his policies. Whether they do so outwardly or not, I'm not so sure. I think that they just continue down this road, this path, where they say, the president, it doesn't matter. The president is irrelevant at this point. The president is a lame duck. He's a lame duck president.

No, he's anything but a lame duck. Because the Democrats are going to pull away from this president, the president is going to see an open highway. The president believes the things that he says. The president believes that comprehensive immigration reform doesn't go far enough. The president believes that we shouldn't be asking people for a green card. There are no borders here. You come in. You have a right to work here. I think Rand Paul believes that. It's not so radical to some people. So he believes in this open border. He has a phone and a pen and he's going to use it.

Now, what does that do?

What that does is that sets the country on fire and splits us even deeper, because there are those who believe, and I'm one of them, that this actually is the end of the republic as we know it. You just can't open up the borders. Read Gibbons, Mr. President. It was the last act before Rome fell. You just can't open the borders, especially with everything that's going on, between the disease that, Mr. President, your policies brought in to this country. The enterovirus, that has crippled children, killed children, nobody is willing to talk about it, look into it. Look at the stats. That was brought in from people coming across the border and infecting our children. But that's just the beginning of it.

If you open and give these green cards, which they've now printed nine million green cards, if you just start giving everybody a green card, that's just going to open the borders up even more. Then everybody will come, because now they'll say, oh, my gosh. They actually did it. It's not just come and the possibility. They actually did it. So come. It opens our borders up even more.

That requires the Republicans then to take a strong stand and the Republicans to say, you can't do that, which sets up a battle. But it's a battle between the president, not the Democrats, the president and the GOP.

The Democrats will step back. The Democrats will suddenly say, you know, we're not in this. That's the president. And they will watch. And they will see which way the wind is blowing. Some will step up. Most will not. And the one that won't, the one that will be cautioning, step back, step back, just wait, wait for the right time. Wait for it to settle down. Wait for the ads to begin. Wait for them to change public opinion. And the ads will start and they will be run by people like Mark Zuckerberg.

They will run the same campaign, the campaign that was run on gay marriage. None of us hate gay people. I mean, I'm sure there are people that hate gay people. Those are in the extreme minority. And they're freaks. Nobody hate gay people. Nobody wants them to be unhappy. If you love somebody, love somebody, whatever. I'm not your judge, dude. However, I believe in traditional marriage. Okay, you don't. Okay. My stance has been why is the government involved in this at all? I don't get any value from the government telling me who I can and cannot marry. Don't do this because then the next thing the government will have to do is tell my church that I have to marry gay couples. Now you're get -- now you're interfering with church. Any thinking person could see this nightmare coming a million miles away, but it was denied. And what they did was they personalized it and made anyone who said they were against gay marriage a hater. It worked now, didn't it?

So why not use this, Mark Zuckerberg, why not use this as your approach? We all know people who are living in the shadows. They cut your lawn, they fix your house. They're hardworking Americans. We all know them. Why would you hate those who are working here, who just want to have a better life?

They will begin to position it and make it personal instead of about making it about principles. Because we're a nation without any principles, because we're a nation that can't even think about principles anymore, anyone who stands against just opening up the borders is going to be deemed a hatemonger.

Maybe not the first day, but definitely by 2016. And as soon as this shakes out, it will divide the country. And it will be a fight between the president and the GOP.

And who will be there to say, look, the GOP is crazy. They're full of haters. They're full of racists. Now the president, did he do the right thing? No, I don't think he did. But there's a place in between here and we need to start talking about common sense.

May I introduce you to the next president of the United States, Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

She will play the middle ground. She will be the great mediator. She will be the one that plays right in the middle. Look, I'm not with -- I'm certainly not with the GOP. But I'm not really with the president either.

We're in the most dangerous position this republic has been in since the Civil War. And it begins on Wednesday. Whenever the balance of power is given, the president is unleashed. He no longer has to worry about the Democrats because the Democrats don't like him and quite frankly I don't think he likes them.

He's certainly does not in bed with the Clintons. He doesn't like the Clintons, he never has and the Clintons don't like him.

He believes in his principles. I think he believes he's been wronged the whole time. I believe the president thinks he's a victim. He's a victim of me, of Fox News, of now it will be the Democrats deserting him. All he was trying to do is what he was trying to do.

Quite honestly, I kind of agree with him. He was at least transparent before he became president. You knew -- he said everything that he was going to do. Nobody took him at his word. He said he was going to do,  may I just remind you, fundamental transformation of the United States. May I just remind you of his wife. Barack knows, you're going to have to change your traditions, you're going to have to change your language. You're going to have to change everything. So he was honest. He said it.

Now you could say he wasn't exactly honest because he was lying about single-payer system, but he at least said it and we have him on tape. When,  when Mitt Romney said one thing on tape in a back room, everybody said that was the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. He said that's not what I meant.

Nobody even asked the president if what they had on tape, what we played on Fox over and over and over again was what he meant. Everybody just dismissed it and pointed the finger and said you're a hater.

So I kind of actually agree with the president, that he's been wronged by his own party. He's been wronged by his own supporters. He got more done than any other democratic president in the history of the United States of America and I think that's more than FDR. He fundamentally changed the United States of America. Because he believes it.

He's going to do exactly what Woodrow Wilson tried to do but Woodrow Wilson in the end -- remember, when he was, quote, the lame duck, he couldn't get those things through. This president doesn't care. This president will sign it through. And the Democrats are smart enough to just stand back.

If Harry Reid is still part of the Senate, then these things can't come true.If Harry Reid is running the Senate, then he's going to have a harder time getting these things through, because the Democrats will get the blame.

But the minute the GOP takes control, the president has a wide open highway. He'll floor this sucker.

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.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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.