The consequences of the Iran deal won’t be felt by the Obama administration

The hallmark of the modern Democratic party has to be passing legislation and instituting policy that makes everyone feel really good for a moment but pushes massive consequences down the road. The Obama administration has done it with growing entitlement programs like Obamacare, growing the national debt, ignoring illegal immigration, and more. The Iran nuclear deal will end up being the latest in a long list. Buck Sexton has the story and reaction on today’s radio show.

Start listening at 21min into today's podcast:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

From a policy perspective, what the president is doing with Iran and the broader Middle East as well, you can see a pattern. It's one I think we should start to recognize for what it is. Because it's very difficult to deal with. And in a sense, it's almost like an Alinskyite subversion of democracy or subversion of a representative government. What they do is they make sure that policies that they couldn't get normally passed have a sort of time delay fuse on them, such that they won't be held accountable. Right?

So they plan things, whether it's health care, whether it's immigration, and now we see with Iran, do things that will give you a sort of political benefit today and the consequences are pushed down the line. Now, look, the best example of this and the one that is most obvious to many of us would be entitlements, which just in the last few weeks, the president has said, there's no problem with Social Security. There's no problem with the debt. Which is going to be $20 trillion by the time President Obama leaves office. No problem with any of this stuff. And, of course, it's easy. And it's very palatable and very profitable for a politician to say that's the case. Because you can say, this is the nice guy. This is the nice leader. The one that doesn't want to take away any of the stuff we have. Or change any of the promises government made to us. This is what we're running up against, time again. This is the Democrat playbook 101. You want to be the guy who promises things. Not the one that tells people that they actually can't have it. If you manipulate the time frame of all this stuff, that's not so hard to do.

You want to be the one who says, I'm going to give you stuff. Or I'm going to accomplish things today that you won't feel the consequences of for quite some time.

And also, I'm going to do things in such a way that you won't really know what's going on until it's too late for you to do anything about it. You're reading editorials about this. It's popping up all over the media. Now you're getting the real President Obama. Now you're seeing what Obama has always wanted to be as president. This is Obama released from the constraints of having to please the electorate and having to actually represent the will of the American people. You're getting the will of Obama now.

The aftermath of the midterm just became quite clear when he decided to go with an equity order on immigration. Why wait until not only after he's been reelected, but after the midterms. Because what we see. And this is where people say, I understand what Trump is getting at a little bit here. I understand that we should have this discussion. What the Democrats realize is that Americans across-the-board do not want illegal immigration. They do not want to live in a lawless society. They do not want to live in a country that does not have control of its borders. So they lie and they say it's not a problem. It's not happening. They tell us that they actually are doing more than ever to secure the borders and all the rest of it. That's why President Obama waited until after the midterm to take that action. Because if it was such a great idea and the American people liked it, well, why not do it beforehand. Let your party be judged by the American people on the actions it takes. That would seem to be rather straightforward. Yet, here we are. Here we are. Had to wait. Had to wait until the end.

With even the recent reform, or rather the commutations of prison sentences and the calls for reform from the president, the president is finally taking action on this. And this is something where he actually has some Libertarian support. There are other conservatives and other Republicans who are saying, yeah, we probably shouldn't have people who are first time offenders who are serving life sentences. That's not a good idea. We can do something about it. We can lessen those sentences. Wait until the end. Why? Democrats are, of course, haunted by a past of pandering, pandering to all sorts of constituencies in the country about, well, we don't want to have too many people that are locked up for crimes. And Democrats were essentially soft on crime for a long time.

And with the declines in this country and criminal activity that has been happening nationwide, there was a recognition that this is something that maybe they could change. So the president waits on that. But Iran is really the amazing test case for this theory that I have, right? It's the time delay fuse. And this is what they keep setting over and over again. And they can say whatever they want because we don't know. Not enough Americans figure out what's coming. It has to happen, right? Then you can expect there to be some kind of a revolt by the electorate. But if you don't know, the Democrats have the media on their side. They can do a lot of spin. With the Iran deal, I think they figured that would happen. They would be able to create a certain perception of this and by the time we figure it out because it's staring us in the face -- and in this case staring us in the face in the form of nuclear weapons, by the time we figure it out and it's clear -- it's too clear even for the propaganda to shroud it or to confuse people. The media won't be able to come up with a narrative that changes the discussion and then all of a sudden, yeah, I get that. Sure, I believe what they say.

This president will be long gone from office. Everybody who had made these decisions. But for them, for the very egotistical leadership we have in this country, the president, of course, is really in a class by himself in that regard, the fact that that is the case and that there won't be consequences necessarily for anybody because of the reckoning the American people will have with what's happened with the Iran deal. Which is, we have ensured a stronger, more dangerous, more durable nuclear-armed Iranian regime. By the time that could be a headline on every newspaper across the country because it's just so obvious, they will be gone.

And yet the president wants the victory dance now. The administration wants to spike the football in the end zone. They want the credit for this. They want the Nobel Peace Prizes for Kerry and whomever else. So they want it at the same time. They want both of these things. What we find out and what we see increasingly is that, no, no, it doesn't work that way. This isn't the '90s when the Clintons can kind of put out some kind of a meme and the media processes it and they just jam it down all of our throats. And we have no way of figuring out what's actually going on here. This was not what the president was expecting with Iran. This was not what he was expecting. He really thought that it would be something that he could at least get away with celebrating now. By the time we all figure out what's really happened, no accountability.

And that's really -- that's really the essential point here. That the Democrats are constantly doing things for which they're trying -- they're doing things and trying to evade accountability for their actions. Because at the heart of a progressive statist, they don't care what you think. They do not care what you think. And they also -- by the way, this is a big problem for Hillary because people know this about her. They don't care about your problems. You're just a bump in the road. You're just collateral damage to the grand policies of the better society that they're building by taking away your liberty, by deciding how much freedom you really should have. And if someone else is getting to decide all the time how much freedom you have, are you free? It's a fair question to ask yourself at this point.

But you're seeing it all now. It's all coming together. This crowning diplomatic achievement for the administration, that all of us look at it and say, no, no, the emperor actually has no clothing. And then the emperor is very upset. Wait a second. This is part of a pattern. This is not something that comes out of nowhere. This is something we should have been expecting. Because this is how the modern Democrat Party operates.

It's via the imposition of policies and the imposition of these things on all of us that we don't get a say in. And by the time everyone realizes what's happening, look at Obamacare. You want to talk about a time delayed fuse. Look at Obamacare. All the real stuff keeps getting pushed back, pushed back, pushed back. They're hoping to shape the ground. Create the narrative. And force feed all of us into this. And yet, with Iran, they miscalculated. He's getting his way. So in that respect, they timed this out perfectly. But they miscalculated what our perception would be. They thought that there would be a ticker tape parade waiting. And the American people looked at this and said, this is a capitulation. It is really the culmination of all of the greatest concerns that many of us have had about this administration. About this president from the start.

Go back even a few years. People were talking about an American retreat from the world stage. An obsession with multilateralism. Relying on international institutions, when American leadership and decisiveness is, in fact, much more important and a much more appropriate response.

Look at all of that. And what you see this week is that we were proven right. We've been right all along. The only problem is that being right doesn't stop the carnage in the Middle East. It doesn't stop the mullahs from their relentless pursuit, not just of nukes, but of hegemony across the Middle East. So we were right, all right. But it doesn't change the problems that we've been now saddled with by an administration that is much more concerned with ego than wisdom.

Take a break here. Back in just a minute.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?