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

EXCLUSIVE: Cruz Leaves the Door Open to Unsuspending His Campaign

May 10, 2016
Jon Boldt

Writer

So you're sayin' there's a chance!

Ted Cruz called in to the The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday, giving Glenn and the crew a much-needed sliver of optimism for election coverage this evening. Co-host Pat Gray couldn't help but toss out a Hail Mary to the former presidential candidate.

"Ted, are you leaving the door open to . . . if Nebraska were to somehow, miraculously choose you tonight, is there . . . I mean, if that happened, would you consider getting back in the race?" Pat asked.

Cruz's response even caught both Pat and Glenn by surprise.

"Well, I am not holding my breath," Cruz said. "My assumption is that that will not happen. But, listen, let's be very clear: If there is a path to victory . . . we launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended the race last week, it was Indiana's loss. I didn't see a viable path to victory. If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly."

Pat's joy couldn't be contained as he gave Cruz supporters a call to action.

"Right. I don't know about you, Nebraska, but I take that as a, 'Yes!' Get to the polls and vote for Ted Cruz," Pat exclaimed.

"Yes! I take that as a big 'Yes,'" Glenn said. "That's interesting, Ted. That's interesting. That's very interesting."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Ted Cruz is on with us now. Hello, Ted, how are you? Are you there, Ted?

TED: I am. It's great to be with you, Glenn.

GLENN: Good to be with you. How are you feeling?

TED: You know, I am feeling great. Obviously, the election results were not what we had hoped for.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: But I'll tell you, Heidi and I feel incredibly privileged to have had the chance to make this run, to be part of what was just an incredible grassroots movement.

And, you know, not a day goes by that we are not thankful for the men and women all across this country that we had the opportunity to meet, and they're just patriots fighting for this country. And that was inspirational. We came up short in this election. I would have preferred it otherwise.

PAT: Me too.

TED: But the movement still continues. And that's what gives me encouragement.

GLENN: Let's talk about that in two ways: First of all, can a conservative win happen with the media the way it is today? Facebook -- we just found out a couple days ago, Facebook -- like, for instance, dropped my speech from CPAC, dropped your speech from CPAC. They were manipulating what was trending if you were a conservative, especially one that was for Ted Cruz.

TED: Sure.

GLENN: You know how Fox behaved. How can someone like you win when the media is the way it is? Can you?

TED: Well, you can. Now, this election will be studied for the role of the media, and in particular, network executives, that they made in terms of promoting the candidate that they had chosen they wanted to win. You know, it's now -- you know, for example, Trump has received now over $3 billion in free airtime.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: Strikingly, over the last 30 days, he had $500 billion in free airtime, 90 percent of which was positive. To put that in perspective, in the entire 13 months of the campaign, the aggregate coverage of my campaign was about 500 billion dollars' worth.

GLENN: You mean million.

TED: He got that in 30 days, and 90 percent of his was positive.

And that has a dramatic impact on the polls, when every network becomes effectively the super PAC for the candidate they want to win the nomination. And we're about to see that same ferocious fury now turn against Donald in an effort to elect Hillary. And there's no doubt we need to think hard about, what is the role of a handful of executives in manipulating and trying to deceive the voters? Because I think it's a very dangerous dynamic that we have right now.

GLENN: So, Ted, we have only about eight minutes. I know you're on a tight schedule, and we're on the network schedule. So I want to get some pretty important questions out.

There are people now -- we are getting hammered by two -- by two fronts. One, people saying, "You've got to convince Ted to run third party." And I keep saying, "I don't think he would do that." The other is, "You've got to support Donald Trump." And we can't do that.

What do the people that were for you, what do you think that we should do? What is your recommendation? And can you support Donald Trump?

TED: Well, listen, this is a choice every voter is going to have to make. And I would note, it's not a choice that we as the voters have to make today. The Republican convention isn't for another two and a half months. The election isn't for another six months.

You and I both want to support a conservative. We want to support someone who will get the burden of Washington off of small businesses and bring back jobs and economic growth. We want to support someone who will defend the Constitution, defend the Bill of Rights, religious liberty, the Second Amendment. We want to defend someone who will stand by our friends and allies, including especially the nation of Israel, and we want to defend someone who will be a strong, serious commander-in-chief.

More broadly than that, Glenn, you and I both want a president we can trust, a president we can trust with power, who demonstrates a temperament not to abuse that power. That's what elections are about.

The voters in the primary have seemed to have made a choice. And we'll see what happens as the months go forward. But I think we need to watch and see what the candidates say and do.

PAT: Now, you say we need to watch and see. Ted, are you leaving the door open to -- if Nebraska were to somehow --

GLENN: It's not going to happen.

PAT: -- miraculously choose you tonight.

GLENN: Pat's going for the hail Mary.

PAT: Is there -- I mean, if that happened, would you consider getting back in the race?

(chuckling)

TED: Well, I am not holding my breath. My assumption is that that will not happen.

But, listen, let's be very clear: If there is a path to victory -- we launched this campaign intending to win. The reason we suspended the race last week, it was Indiana's loss. I didn't see a viable path to victory. If that changes, we will certainly respond accordingly.

PAT: Right. I don't know about you, Nebraska, but I take that as a yes!

GLENN: Yes! I take that as a big yes.

PAT: Get to the polls and vote for Ted Cruz.

GLENN: Now, I want you to know, the minute you would unsuspend your campaign, John Kasich would do the exact same thing.

PAT: I bet he would. I bet he would.

JEFFY: I bet he would too.

GLENN: I bet he would.

That's interesting, Ted. That's interesting. That's very interesting.

(laughter)

PAT: That's very, very interesting.

GLENN: Yeah, very interesting.

PAT: I like that.

GLENN: Can I ask you --

TED: You know, I will say, Glenn, a lot of folks in the media are trying to spin this election results as the death of the conservative movement. And that's a media narrative that the media loves. But also, a lot of the Washington establishment loves.

GLENN: Yeah.

TED: And I got to tell you, I think it's complete nonsense. I think the conservative movement remains strong and vibrant. I think the conservative movement unfortunately was divided. That doesn't mean it is -- it lacks its potency, but it is true that when conservatives are divided, we are far less effective. And there are a lot of reasons for that.

GLENN: So that brings us to what the G.O.P. is saying.

Two weeks ago, Ted, Reince Priebus had -- wanted to spend the day with us. And spend the day, do television, do radio, and then have some conversations off air because he was courting our listeners. Since you dropped out, the guy won't even return our phone calls. This is the week it was supposed to happen. He was going to do Hannity, us, and Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday was Hannity. Now he's saying, "We never planned on coming down." I mean, it's incredible what happened.

And so how do we get behind a group of people who don't have any interest in asking conservatives for their vote?

TED: Well, I -- I hope that proves not the case. And, you know, from my perspective, this fight was about a lot more than one campaign or one candidate. This fight is about principles that are eternal, the free market principles that built America that allowed millions of small businesses to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty and into prosperity. Those principles are as true today as they were every day of our country's history. The constitutional liberties and the Bill of Rights that protect our God-given rights from being violated by the federal government, those rights are true and as valid today as they have been throughout history.

And so the movement continues -- what my energy is directed at, what my focus is directed at is to continue to strengthen and speak for that movement, to all of the grassroots activists, the over 7 million people across the country who voted for me, allowing us to win 12 states across the country. This fight will continue because the country is worth it.

And, you know, whether those in Washington will listen in the short-term, that will be their choice. But I think the answer, the only force strong enough to change the path we're on is the grassroots. And so my energy and focus is going to remain where it always has been, working to listen to the people and to fight for the people, each and every day.

STU: Ted, looking back at Barack Obama in 2008, he comes along. He has this big victory. Everyone predicts the end of the Republican Party, the end of the conservative movement. It's just going to be a regional party from now on.

Two years later, you have the Tea Party wave election. So that's proved wrong. And it wasn't that Americans seemingly turned towards progressivism, they just really seemed to like Barack Obama. He was this guy who hit -- who hit the right tones at the right time somehow. I didn't see it. But obviously America did at some level. Do you see that the same way with Donald Trump, in that it's not necessarily that the Republican Party is turning away from conservatism. They just see this guy as the right personality for this time.

TED: Well, listen, there's no doubt about the power of celebrity. And by any measure, Donald Trump is a phenomenon. And it has been a phenomenon heavily fueled by media executives who have run him 24/7.

GLENN: So --

TED: And that's -- that is one of a kind.

GLENN: So wait, wait, wait, Ted. Is it? Or has the Democratic Party that has the whole stable of celebrities looked at that and said, "Well then, why don't we go for a Will Smith/Angelina Jolie ticket?"

TED: Look, there is -- that is entirely possible. You know, one of the disturbing things about this election -- and there are many -- is that it opens the door potentially for what comes next. And what comes next is not likely to be sound, stable leaders with good judgment and the understanding of the problems facing this country, our economy, and the challenges and threats facing us across the world.

You know, that's -- you know, I'm still a little bit old-fashioned in that I think we ought to be able to look up to our president. We ought to be able to be proud if our kids want to be like the president. And that's -- that's a test that, you know, many presidents from JFK to FDR to Ronald Reagan, there were millions of kids who wanted to be like those presidents. And their presidents were proud that that was the model that they were emulating. I sure hope that we don't move away from that to a system where you would be less than proud if your kids said they wanted to be like the president.

GLENN: So, Ted, I only have two minutes left. When Marco Rubio left, he said he had a regret.

A, do you have any regret? And, B, where are you going next?

TED: Well, look, my biggest regret is that we weren't able to accomplish the task and that we let down the millions of grassroots activists across the country who fought so hard.

Heidi and I and the girls, we poured everything into it we've got. But we weren't able to get it done. And, you know, I wish we hadn't disappointed so many incredible people across the country. But, you know, where do I go next? I'm actually driving to the airport right now, flying to Washington to go back to the Senate and the very same principles that I was fighting for to execute from the White House: Jobs, freedom, security.

PAT: They're going to be happy to see you.

GLENN: Yeah, they're going to love to see you.

TED: Those are my priorities in the Senate.

GLENN: Is there a possibility of a third party in the future of people that think like you?

TED: You know, I don't think that's very likely, but it's always talked about. I don't know that it's something that's likely to happen.

What I do think is imperative is that we actually get the job done: And the job is getting the burden of Washington off of small businesses so that we have wages going up again, we have jobs coming back to America, we have people having a chance again at the American dream. I mean, we are trapped in a stagnation, and people are hurting.

And, you know, I'm very dismayed that the odds are increasing that we simply keep going down the same road, we don't fix those problems, and people end up hurting even more.

And that's where my focus is going to be, is fighting for small businesses, fighting for the American worker, to get Washington off your back. And I believe we're going to accomplish that. But it just may take more time.

GLENN: Ted, great to talk to you. We'll talk to you again, I'm sure, when you're in Washington. And what you're saying is, if Nebraska goes the right way, there's still a chance.

STU: There's a chance!

GLENN: He's just saying there's a chance.

All right. Thanks a lot, Ted. I appreciate it.

TED: Thank you, gentlemen.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during a campaign rally at the Indiana State Fairgrounds on May 2, 2016 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Cruz continues to campaign leading up to the state of Indiana's primary day on Tuesday. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.