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

'This guy is lying to you': Glenn breaks down the case against Grover Norquist

March 28, 2015
Staff

WRITER

GLENN: So let me make this case for you. And I think this is the most important part of this whole interview with Grover Norquist last night. You want to know who Grover Norquist is? He will tell you that he is a guy who is fighting the bad guys in the Middle East. He started the Islamic Institute. He took two checks of $10,000 each from Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi. A guy who [was sentenced to] prison for 23 years. His sentence has just been reduced to 16 years by the Obama administration.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: Yes. Al-Amoudi's number two man is Khaled Saffuri. When Al-Amoudi is known as a guy who is going to jail, Grover Norquist says he distances himself from it. But the number two man for Al-Amoudi is Saffuri. Grover brings him in as the co-founder of the Islamic Institute. Okay?

Doesn't make sense to me. I think you should probably ask a few questions. Now, Grover says, he didn't like Al-Amoudi because Saffuri had told him he was an old-style Muslim. If you remember at the beginning of the interview, he was saying that the problem was the old-style Muslim. So why would you take money from an old-style Muslim? Why would you take a loan from a guy who was an old-style Muslim, who also started many of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups here in the United States? Why would you be involved with him at all, if Saffuri told you that's who he was? Then he gets involved with Sami Al-Arian. He claims, 'I barely knew him. Maybe I sneezed in the same room he was in, but I didn't even know him.'

Then Jamal al Barzinji. Jamal is the father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S. He is the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S.

Grover Norquist marches him in to the Treasury Secretary's office arm-in-arm saying we have to stop the secret evidence trail. When they were looking to shut down Muslim Brotherhood financing and terror financing and money laundering here in the United States, it was Grover Norquist and Jamal al Barzinji that walked into the Treasury Secretary and demanded that it stop.

Now, last night, he tried to say, 'well, it didn't prove any fruit. There was nobody that was indicted.'

The guy he mentioned that didn't come up with anything, we have the draft subpoena. I think it's 116 charges of money laundering and terror financing. It was the Justice Department under -- who is our current Justice Department guy? Head of the FBI, Holder. It was Holder's office that called it off. So they had the charges ready to go, and Holder called it off. So that doesn't hold any water.

But what did Barzinji do? Well, he also started Muslim Brotherhood front groups or his name is on the roster. He's part of Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Then we got to Suhail Khan. Now, Suhail Khan has worked with the White House. This guy is fully laundered. This is the Van Jones of the Muslim Brotherhood. Everybody trusts Suhail Khan.

Last night I asked him, are you friends with Suhail Khan? Are you friends with him? I'll play his answers in a little while. His answer is stunning. I guess. It's my understanding that he and Suhail Khan are very close. Very close. That these two are joined at the hip. That they are very good friends.

He answered the question, 'I guess.' So wait a minute. What does that mean. Is he a friend? 'Well, he's a friend as much as anybody has a friend in Washington.' What does that mean? So he's not a friend? 'Well, I have a lot of friends in Washington. 150 people in my office every Wednesday, you know, that I have meetings with and I guess they're all friends too.'

So he's distancing himself from Suhail Khan. Why would you do that? If you think this guy is absolutely clean and you are indeed a friend.

Stu, if somebody came to you and said, are you friends with Glenn Beck? 'Yes.'

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Really close friends? 'Yeah, I guess. We've been together for a long time. Know each other really well.; Why? If they smeared all your other friends, I would hope you would say, 'look, I know Glenn. What charges are you making here, he's a good guy.' Right?

He didn't say that. He never said that.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. 'Yes, I'm friends.' That's not a hard question to answer, okay? Especially a guy who has been clean and clear for everybody. He's got the full weight of the White House behind him saying Suhail Khan is a great guy.

STU: You would be proud. You're tying someone who is a good guy to yourself.

GLENN: For instance, he said about al Barzinji, he said, 'what charges are you making against him? He's a good guy.' And I said, 'he was the founding father of the American Muslim Brotherhood. I think that is enough said.' 'Well, I don't think so.'

Okay, so he stands for the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group he says at the very beginning is a bad group.

STU: Yep. Should be opposed.

GLENN: So he should be opposed. But he won't do that with Suhail Khan. He doesn't see my line of questioning. I think he thought I was going for another line of questioning with Suhail Khan. But here was my line of questioning. Remember, you're starting the anti-Klan thing. You're looking for people that can help you get people away from the Klan.

Suhail Khan's parents were Muslim Brotherhood, bad Muslim Brotherhood. They're friends with Al-Amoudi, a guy who is serving a prison sentence. They actually were involved in getting al-Zawahiri in to the United States covertly in the 1990s. Okay? So he could observe. That's the number two al-Qaeda guy under Osama bin Laden and then the number one guy after Osama bin Laden's death. So a really bad guy. They help him get into the United States covertly.

Then a few weeks or a few months before the World Trade Center bombing, they have a dinner with the Blind Sheik. So are there parents that are more Muslim Brotherhood than Suhail Khan's parents?

STU: That's pretty hardcore.

GLENN: If these things are contract accurate, that's the hardest core of hardest core. So here's what I asked. 'So you're friends with him. Have you had a beer with him and just shot the breeze?' 'Well, yeah.'

'Have you asked him, what was it like growing up in a household like that? What was it like to have your parents bring in the blind sheik, friends with Al-Amoudi, al-Zawahiri, what was that like?' 'No, I didn't ask that.' Play cut 11.

GLENN: Have you ever said to him, so Suhail, your folks were -- were pretty intense? I mean, your folks were Muslim Brotherhood, your folks just before the World Trade Center bombing had the blind sheik over to the house. What was that like?

GLENN: Listen to this.

GROVER: His dad has been dead for 15 years. Twenty years or something. So I've never discussed his dead father with him. I've heard -- again, I've heard the accusation.

GLENN: I've heard the accusation. I didn't talk to his father, who has been dead for 15 or 20 years, he says. Fifteen or 20 years. Well, I think the pain - it's not like he died last Wednesday. He's been dead for 15 or 20 years. Stu, you're running it. I have the guy whose parents were both grand wizards of the Klan, okay? They brought in the worst of the worst. They made the ropes and picked out the trees. They had David Duke over for dinner. He's out.

Two-part question. The son is out. He is against the Klan now. You're running an anti-Klan thing. Do you say, 'you know, I hate to bring this up because I know your dad is dead and it must have been horrible, but this can really help us, you're a massive asset, how did you get out?' Do you say that?

STU: Not only do I say it, it's the most interesting thing about you. It's literally priority number one to talk to someone like that. This is what my organization is designed to do.

JEFFY: On top of the fact, why do you have to ask that?

GLENN: That's question number two! Can I ask you -- have you ever met David Horowitz?

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: David Horowitz parents were the worst of the worst. They were communist sympathizers. They were part of the undoing of the US during the red scare and everything else. They were spies. You can't shut David Horowitz up. You're like, can we talk about something else besides -- okay. If your parents were Muslim Brotherhood Al-Amoudi, Blind Sheik, al-Zawahiri, and you're now in the White House, you would be the biggest -- people around you would be like, 'please shut up. I get it.' You would be the number one guy ringing the warning bell. They've never discussed it. He is lying.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would convict on this if you were sitting in a court that makes no sense whatsoever.

STU: I mean, it just makes sense. Here is an example of the exact thing you want. Someone with radical parents to turn around against those organizations. You have that person in front of you as a good friend on a routine basis, and it never comes over a ten-year --

GLENN: Fifteen-year time span. It makes no sense whatsoever. You've never discussed that. Makes no sense.

Now, my question to you is, you didn't accept any of this from the Obama administration. Now, this guy agrees with you on much of the stuff. He agrees with you, lower taxes. He's helping people get elected and everything else. He's on your side. Do you accept it now or are you consistent? Do you have the balls to have the courage of your conviction and say, yes, this might hurt in the short-term, but this guy needs to be out of CPAC. This guy needs to be out of the G.O.P. Who is he meeting with every Wednesday in his Wednesday meeting of 150 Republicans every single Wednesday.

Who is he meeting? What is he saying? Where is he getting his funding from? Who else has he white-washed and put into places that God knows Muslim Brotherhood should not be in?

This guy is lying to you.

STU: And what's important about this is, when we all look at the Republican Party and people working in those circles in Washington and we wonder why over and over and over again we -- we're able to win elections and not get the results that we want, we're able to put -- we have so many people saying the right things, but never doing the right things. Why does this continue to happen? This very well could be the string at the end of this --

GLENN: It is. I'm telling you this leads to Karl Rove. This leads to all of them. You want to know why we played footsy in the Middle East? You want to know why we have the Muslim Brotherhood in this White House and the last White House? Here it is, gang. Now, do you have the courage to look at it. Do you have the courage to stand? He's on the board of the NRA. He was with CPAC. I'll give you the list of all the boards that he was on. I don't have the list right now.

You tell me you think this guy is a good person to have around. He's not. He's not. And I will just say this, I don't know his motivation. I'm not saying he's trying to destroy the United States. My guess is he likes power and money. That's it. There's a lot of money in the Middle East, all you have to do is play footsie. And we'll be fine. And stop being so panicky and little girl. That's what's happening. He's choosing to turn a blind eye. I don't think he's Muslim. I'll just tell you this, his answers make no sense. None.

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 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.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

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.