PolitiFact: 73 Percent of Trump's Statements Are False

March 01, 2016

Writer

PolitiFact has looked at Donald Drumpf's statements and finds that 73 percent of his statements are false.

"He is a sociopathic liar. He doesn't care. He may not even know he's lying anymore. He just believes whatever it is that he makes up in his own head," Glenn said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "You'll never see his income tax. Not because there's something going on there. But because the people who have worked with him closely for over ten years estimate his net value, his net worth at $150 million."

Should that be true, what would it say about the character of man who refuses to release tax returns so people won't find out his whole life is a lie?

Additionally, it's well-documented that Drumpf quickly turns from friend to foe should he feel threatened.

"If you don't do him a solid, he destroys you," Glenn said.

Here's a sampling of Drumpf's grade school name-calling:

Erick Erickson — a total low life

Arianna Huffington — a liberal clown

Chuck Todd — pathetic

Charles Krauthammer — a loser and a jerk

Bob Vander Plaats — a phony and a con man

Glenn Beck — a dopey idiot

An article today in the Weekly Standard, written by Stephan Hayes, makes one ponder this pertinent question:

If Drumpf condemns anyone he dislikes, why does he go soft on David Duke and the KKK?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: It's Super Tuesday, and it's much more serious than it sounds, the responsibility on each of our shoulders today, to do our homework before we walk into our polling locations. The fate of America rests on your shoulders. But no pressure. We start there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. Today from Washington, DC, and the studios at WMAL, I want to thank 1000 KTOK for hosting us yesterday in Oklahoma City and WMAL for hosting us today in Washington, DC, as we prepare for CPAC that is happening this weekend. We'll be broadcasting from there Thursday and Friday and talked to some of the people at CPAC. Max Lucado is going to be on with us today, as is Ted Cruz.

It is Super Tuesday. 25 percent of all the delegates will be assigned by tomorrow morning. And it's going to be pretty hard to -- to stop Donald Drumpf at this point. Not impossible. But pretty hard to stop. I'm looking at the news today, and I find it interesting that all of these people are coming out with these plans to stop Donald Drumpf.

And the one I keep hearing about is insanity. And it's Marco Rubio's plan, not to win any of the -- any of the contest today. His plan is not to win any of the contest, but to believe just to have enough delegates to go to a brokered convention. The other plan is to have the G.O.P. kick Donald out and run somebody else in his stead.

What kind of banana republic do we live in? I am not a fan of Donald Drumpf, nor will I vote for Donald Drumpf. But I have to tell you, if the American people say they're going to vote for Donald Drumpf, the G.O.P. was the one that made the deal. The G.O.P. was the one that said, "You have to run -- you can't run for third party." You think you're going to take his delegates away and not start a civil war? You think you're going to kick him out of the party and not start a civil war?

The G.O.P. is done. They're just done. They didn't get it. They have no idea why Donald Drumpf has any kind of traction at all. And none of their plans include the guy who is number two in the delegate count. They refuse to look at the guy who actually is going to win some states today. Why?

Because he's anti-establishment. Because he will stop all of this nonsense that's happening in Washington. So why get behind that guy? You got to get behind the guy that doesn't win any states. That doesn't make any sense.

Because the establishment is still all about power. It's all about control. We have gone down this road now of progressivism far too long. And people don't see it. I got up this morning and I was thinking about it. I was watching the news and I thought, "You know, it's amazing to me -- it's amazing to me. This guy, Donald Drumpf, would be laughed out if he was running for Democrats. We would laugh at him. We would all say, oh, my gosh, bring it on. Exactly what Hillary Clinton doing."

There's a new story out about how Hillary Clinton is salivating at Donald Drumpf. By the way, new poll out shows Donald Drumpf does not beat Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head. And they haven't even begun. Look at what the New York Times said yesterday.

New York Times has an off the record, confidential meeting with Donald Drumpf back in January. Where supposedly he said, "Look, everything is negotiable. Don't worry about it. I know you're all freaked out." But basically what he said -- what was it on Greta, I can be anything. I'm going to be changing rapidly once I get the nomination. I'll be changing rapidly. I can be whatever I need to be at the time. Basically he said that, apparently to the New York Times, in a confidential meeting, that everything is negotiable, and the stuff he's saying on the border, don't worry about.

Well, I called yesterday for Donald Drumpf to demand that the New York Times release that audiotape. Because they said they will, but they can't release it because it was a confidential meeting. And they can't release it without his permission. But if they ask, if Donald Drumpf asks, they will release it.

Well, I think this is an outrageous lie by the New York Times. Donald Drumpf has said many times that he thinks one of the biggest liars is the New York Times. I happen to agree with him. I think that he should demand that the New York Times produce that tape. And show that he did not indeed say those things.

Except he was on Hannity last night, talking about it. When he spoke to Sean, he said, "Well, look, yes, a lot of things are negotiable. But the New York Times is a liar." Well, if the New York Times is a liar, you should -- you should demand that the tape be released and then sue them.

Don, I know you love to sue them. You love to sue them. Suing is a way of life with you. Because to quote you: You get greedy. And you say, "Give me the money. Give me the money." And you grab and you grab and you grab. That's a quote from you.

So I know you're greedy, which is another beautiful, wonderful, uge, Christian characteristic. But I know you get greedy and you want to grab. So sue them. Because you have them dead to rights. They are hurting your reputation by saying that you are telling the American people one thing and doing the exact opposite. Because we know you would never do that. That's ridiculous to assume and insulting to you.

He won't call for the release of that tape. Guarantee it. Because I bet you my house, that what's on that tape is exactly what the New York Times says is on that tape. Because Donald Drumpf is a liar.

Nobody wants to hear that about people. PolitiFact has looked at his statements and 76 percent of his statements -- or, 73 percent of his statements are false.

He is a sociopathic liar. He doesn't care. He may not even know he's lying anymore. He just believes whatever it is that he makes up in his own head. You'll never see his income tax. Not because there's something going on there. But because the people who have worked with him closely for over ten years estimate his net value, his net worth at $150 million.

Just so you can put that into perspective, that's what -- that's about what Forbes magazine says I'm worth. So that knocks Donald Drumpf down lots of pegs. By the way, I'm not worth that.

But imagine if it meant something to me. What would that say something about my character, if I was like, "No, I'm worth more than that. Oh, man, how dare they say that I'm only worth $150 million. I'm worth a billion dollars. I'm worth $500 million." What would that say about me?

I laugh at the numbers that they always quote from me because that's what my company does in revenue. That's not what I get paid. One of my companies hasn't even paid me in five years.

But what would it say about a man's character if you wouldn't release your tax returns because you just didn't want people to know how much you really are worth because your whole life is a lie?

The other thing that I think Donald Drumpf, the reason why he's not releasing his tax returns, is because he's not as charitable as he says he is. He says he's been giving money for years to vets. My guess is, his charitable contributions are less than 2 percent. I'll bet you that they're zero. But definitely worth less than 2 percent.

He raises money through the Drumpf Foundation or the Drumpf -- he goes and asks other people to give money. And then he doesn't give money himself.

And, by the way, there's people asking now, "Why hasn't he delivered on the charity funds that he promised in Iowa?" You would think -- I don't even understand this story. You have -- you've selected the charities, why haven't you given the money to the charities? The money is there, you've selected the charities, why haven't you just released the funds?

Anybody see the John Oliver, just amazing monologue of 20 minutes taking down Donald Drumpf? Stu, Pat, Jeffy, have you seen -- you saw the whole monologue?

PAT: Yeah. We talked about some of it yesterday.

STU: Yeah. We talked about some of --

GLENN: Yeah, go ahead.

STU: We talked about some of it yesterday. And one of the things we talked about was that he had the exact same experience we had with Donald Drumpf, in which Drumpf also accused him and Jon Stewart of wanting him on the show and Drumpf said no. So that's the only reason those people hate him, which is the exact same thing he said about us. And not true in either circumstance.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Can you imagine thinking so much of yourself that if somebody -- if you tell somebody you're not going to do an interview with them, that that's the sole reason that they don't like you from then on. I mean, that's -- you think a lot of yourself when it's just, "Wow, he didn't do an interview with us. So now we hate his guts and we're going to destroy this man." It's so pathetic.

GLENN: Not only how much do you think of yourself, what do you think the world is like? I mean, what kind of world do you live in, where because -- it's usually self-diagnosis. You know, when somebody like this says something about you. They're usually diagnosing themself. They see the things in others that is in them.

So he is like that. If you don't do him a solid, he destroys you. And so he thinks that everybody else -- because you won't do an interview. I won't do an interview. You must want to destroy me. No, that's you in your sick, twisted world. That's you, man.

STU: Yeah. And the Weekly Standard had a great point on this today, which is -- I mean, we all know the way -- what Drumpf does with people he doesn't like. What does he do to people he doesn't like? Erick Erickson, a total low-life. Arianna Huffington, a liberal clown. Chuck Todd, pathetic. Charles Krauthammer, a loser and a clown. Bill Kristol, a sad case. Bob Vander Plaats is a phony and a con man.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Jeez.

STU: We already know, the things he's called Glenn fills up a whole page of the New York Times insult list. In fact, the New York Times provided a catalog of the 199 people, places, and things Donald Drumpf has insulted on Twitter. A complete list, which, of course, is not actually a complete list.

But here's the point from the Weekly Standard which is brilliant today: After a year of his candidacy, the political world knows well what it looks like when Donald Drumpf wants to offer an unequivocal condemnation. When it comes to David Duke and the KKK, we still haven't seen one.

He hasn't called David Duke a loser. He hasn't called David Duke a scumbag. He hasn't called David Duke a jerk or a phony or a con man.

PAT: Right. And why? Because he supports him.

STU: Because he supports him.

GLENN: What do you think about Rush Limbaugh's excuse for this? He said yesterday that Donald Drumpf was on the Sunday shows, and they have more gravitas. They get more play than just the Megyn Kelly or Sean Hannity or something like that. And so he was on those Sunday shows and he was worried about the poll numbers because the debate didn't go well. And so he just didn't want to alienate anyone who might vote for him. So it's not really an excuse. I mean, it's still really bad. But it's at least a reason why he didn't do it. Do you buy into any of that?

STU: I actually kind of do. But the -- it's funny because people are saying, "Well, this is an excuse he's providing." Actually it's the accusation. The accusation is that he's pandering to white supremacists.

PAT: That's not a good excuse.

STU: It's not an excuse. It's actually we're accusing him of.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And I think that is exactly what he's doing. I mean, I don't know that anyone is saying that he -- while there is certainly long-term evidence and it will be exploited like crazy that he has bad racial tendencies, I don't think he's throwing a hood on him Friday nights. That's not what I think Donald Drumpf is doing.

GLENN: No, he's not a Klan member. He's not a Klan member.

STU: But he's pandering to these people like crazy. And that's not a positive. That's actually the negative we're accusing him of. So I don't know if Rush framed that as an excuse. But it's actually the thing I'm complaining about.

PAT: I think the hoodies are for Tuesdays and Thursdays. Not Fridays.

STU: Okay. Sorry.

GLENN: Let me give you one thing real quick, and then I have to take a break.

There's a new poll out in Florida. 38 percent of Floridians believe that Ted Cruz might be the Zodiac Killer. The serial killer from, what? A decade ago? Or two decades ago? The serial killer in Florida.

38 percent of Floridians believe that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. We'll get into it in a second. But I just want to say this, even with Floridians believing that he's the Zodiac Killer, he still beats Marco Rubio in Florida. (laughter)

Featured Image: Screenshot of The Glenn Beck Program broadcasting from WMAL in Washington, D.C.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.