Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Ted Cruz pledges to rescind every illegal executive action taken by President Obama

August 21, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Ted Cruz joined Glenn on radio today, where he took a moment to list the five things he plans on doing the first day in office if elected. First, he'll take President Obama’s executive actions to task. Next, he'll open an investigation into Planned Parenthood.

By the end, Glenn seemed even more impressed with Cruz than he was before.

Here's the full list in Cruz's own words:

1. Rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

2. Instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

3. Instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

4. Rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

5. Begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

Listen to the full segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: Ted Cruz, presidential candidate and senator from the great state of Texas is on the phone with us now from Iowa or Idaho or one of those I states. I'm not sure.

PAT: Illinois -- something.

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Ted. How are you, sir?

TED: Well, thank you, Glenn. Great to be with you. Always cool, but I don't think I've heard a cooler show intro than, I just got a call from Chuck Norris.

GLENN: And he'll have to --

TED: You're living the life, man. You're living the life.

GLENN: I know. I know. And he'll have to kick your ass if you get out of line, I just want you to know.

So, Ted, first of all, I want to thank you for the support for Birmingham. And thank your father for being there. And you're a little busy doing something, I don't know. But we thank you for all the support you've shown us. And I know that you care desperately about these topics. You only have ten minutes. I want to talk to you real quick on one thing that is really bothering Pat a big deal. He wants to play a piece of audio from you and then see how you -- where you stand. Because we have two differing Ted Cruz -- I don't think they're differing, he does. Listen.

TED: I have spent my professional career defending the Constitution. I served five and a half years as the Solicitor General of Texas, the Chief Lawyer for the state of Texas in front of the US Supreme Court, and I've repeatedly defended the Constitution.

The 14th amendment provides for birthright citizenship. I've looked at the legal arguments against it, and I will tell you, as a Supreme Court litigator, those arguments are not very good.

As much as someone may dislike the policy of birthright citizenship, it's in the US Constitution.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Now, you've also said this.

PAT: That you are absolutely opposed to birthright citizenship.

GLENN: Help me out on that. Which is it?

TED: Well, sure. Both of those comments are entirely consistent. And what I said, that first recording you played, it's from 2011. In 2011, at the time -- and that's just a little segment, but at that time I said publicly I was opposed to birthright citizenship. In fact, I said in writing in 2011 when I was running for the Senate, that I was opposed to birthright citizenship. And the reason is simple: It doesn't make any sense. It's bad public policy.

GLENN: It was for slaves.

TED: That we would incentivize and reward people coming here illegally by giving their children automatic citizenship. So that has been my position today. It was my position yesterday. It will be my position tomorrow. That, as a public policy matter, birthright citizenship doesn't make any sense.

GLENN: Explain what you said then about the Constitution.

TED: There is the separate legal question about how you change that policy. And among constitutional scholars, there is a good-faith legal debate. Some constitutional scholars argue that you need a constitutional amendment to get rid of birthright citizenship. Other constitutional scholars argue that Congress could change it through a statute. There are arguments on both sides.

What I was addressing there is that if it goes through a constitutional amendment -- constitutional amendment takes many, many years. It's a long, delayed process. And so what I was saying there in the rest of that interview is, we need to solve the crisis of illegal immigration now, today. Not five years or ten years from now. And the way to do that is secure the border today. And indeed, in January 2017, if I'm elected president, on the first days in office, the administration will finally begin securing the border, enforcing the law, stopping illegal immigration. That we can do now. I still support pursuing either a statute or a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. But that is a slow and long-term process. It's not something that can be done quickly. And we need to solve this problem quickly.

GLENN: I'm sorry, Pat. I just wanted to say, I didn't hear exactly what you said off the air just a minute ago. What was that, that you said?

PAT: I said that's the explanation you gave.

GLENN: Yes, that they are not -- that's two separate arguments.

PAT: But I wanted it hear it from Ted. Because one of the things that we love so much about you, Senator Cruz, is that you're so consistent and so good on so many issues. In fact, I don't know a single issue on which I disagree with you. So...

GLENN: Would you like to make out with the man right now?

PAT: Almost. I'm pretty close to that, and you know it.

But what's so great is that you've got an -- whenever something like an inconsistency seems to arise, you usually have -- well, always, that I've heard, a good explanation for it.

But the other thing is, I wanted to ask you really quick, because we hear this so often from -- it seems that virtually every conservative really likes you. Really -- in fact, they want to make out with you like I do.

But what we hear so often is, I really like Ted Cruz, but. How do you address that with people? How do you get them to understand?

GLENN: May I rephrase your question? Ted, tell me what your first week in office, what are the things you do?

TED: Well, on the very first day in office, I had pledged to do five things.

The first thing I intend to do is to rescind every single illegal and unconstitutional executive action taken by President Obama.

PAT: Love that.

GLENN: And Bush?

TED: Sure. Although, Obama will take a good chunk of the deck.

GLENN: Yes. All right. Okay.

(laughter)

TED: The second thing that I intend to do is instruct the United States Department of Justice to open an investigation into Planned Parenthood, into these horrific videos, and to prosecute any and all criminal conduct by that organization and its employees.

The third thing I intend to do on the first day in office is instruct the Department of Justice, the IRF, and every federal agency, that the persecution of religious liberty ends today. Instead of the federal government violating and persecuting our religious liberties, the federal government will defend the Bill of Rights and our religious liberty.

The fourth thing I intend to do on the first day in office is rip to shred this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal, which is the single greatest national security threat facing America.

And the fifth thing I intend to do in office, on the first day in office, is begin the process of moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the once and eternal capitol of Israel.

GLENN: I've heard people say that that's not a big deal. To me, that's a huge deal. Explain why that's so important.

TED: Well, it is a huge deal because Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. And we refuse to put our embassy there in an effort to nod to the Arab countries in the Middle East that dispute Israel's right to exist. And it is simply giving in to the radical Islamists who want to destroy Israel. And under federal law -- Congress passed a law providing that the embassy be moved to Jerusalem. But every president has issued a waiver, and the law has a presidential waiver built into it.

And here's one thing that I think is really striking on this point. Many presidential candidates, both Republicans and Democrats, have made the same promise I did, which is to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and when they get to the White House, their national security teams tell them, well, gosh, a bunch of the other folks in the Middle East will be really mad at you if you do that, and they don't follow through.

And, Glenn, Pat, I think the single biggest difference between me and the other very fine gentlemen who were standing on that debate stage in Cleveland, is that with me, when I tell you I will do something, I'm going to do exactly what I said I'm going to do.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: You've proven that.

GLENN: So let me ask you this, because I know you have to run. But we have Johnnie Moore with us on next hour. We had Kayla Mueller, a US aid worker who was held as a sex slave by al-Baghdadi in just a horrific thing. It's clear the administration knew that -- there's no way they didn't know this was happening. Al-Baghdadi did it for a reason.

We haven't really said anything about it. Meantime, Johnnie Moore, I'm raising money right now to try to get the Christians out of the Middle East, get them out of that situation and come into the United States. The United States of America has blocked anybody coming in as Christian from the Middle East. They are not accepting them. We have Mexico that will accept them. We have Poland that will accept them. I think we have Latvia that will accept them. We won't accept them. Will you as president, stand up for the Christians and the Muslims that aren't Muslim enough and the homosexuals that are being killed in the Middle East and allow them to come here and stop giving preferential treatment to Muslims?

TED: Absolutely, yes. And we need a president who will call evil by its name. Right now, we have a president and an administration that refuses to even utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism." ISIS is the face of evil. They are crucifying Christians, they are beheading children, they are using rape, forcible rape as an instrument of terror. And it is -- and they are murdering Christians, they are murdering Jews, they are murdering other Muslims who don't embrace their radical jihad. And right now, this administration refuses to acknowledge the enemy.

Glenn, if I'm elected president, every radical militant across the face of the globe will know, if you join ISIS, if you take up arms and wage jihad against the United States of America, then you are signing your death warrant.

Right now, under the Obama administration, ISIS believes they're winning. And they're winning because this administration is not fighting a real war. It is not using military power to defeat ISIS.

GLENN: No, no. Ted, we're running seven airstrikes a day. Seven.

TED: And in contrast, do you know how many airstrikes a day we ran during the first Persian Gulf War?

GLENN: No.

TED: About 1100. 1,100 a day.

GLENN: Jeez. In a much smaller area. In a much smaller area.

TED: Yes. This is -- we have a commander-in-chief who is not attempting to defeat our enemies. Indeed, the policies of this administration are weakness and appeasement. We see this with the Iranian nuclear deal, where the administration wants to send billions of dollars to Iran, which would make the Obama administration the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. It is unacceptable.

And I do have to tell you, tonight, in Des Moines, Iowa, we have a rally for religious liberty. And one of the people that will be there is Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of Pastor Saeed Abedini, who is wrongfully imprisoned in Iran. He's an American citizen, a Christian pastor. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for preaching the gospel. We're going to have heroes from across the country who have stood for their faith and have been persecuted for religious liberty. It's at 6:30 p.m. Friday night in Des Moines, Iowa. Anyone can find that information about it at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

The Newsboys, the terrific Christian pop band, is going to be playing in concert. I would encourage folks who are nearby Des Moines to join us. And you can watch it live stream online at TedCruz.org. Standing for religious liberty here and across the world.

PAT: Too bad there's no where I can contribute to your campaign if somebody really wanted to.

GLENN: It's going to be another year of this.

PAT: Where would you be able to do that if you really liked everything you just said and you didn't know where to go, what would you do?

TED: You know, funny we should ask. We've had 25,000 contributions at TedCruz.org. TedCruz.org.

And, Glenn, every time I go on your show, your listeners are incredible because they light up the internet with contributions at TedCruz.org. And it's what's giving us such incredible momentum on this campaign. Thank you.

GLENN: Ted, I will tell you that this audience loves you. We do a poll every month, and you've been number one in the poll every single time. You're dirt strong with this audience.

PAT: Every time.

GLENN: And they love you. They love you. Thank you so much, Ted.

TED: Thank you. God bless. Keep speaking the truth, my friend.

GLENN: You got it. Ted Cruz.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.