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

Evan McMullin Will Be on the Ballot in Potentially 45 States

October 13, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin joined Glenn on radio Thursday for a compelling interview about the state of the election.

McMullin's campaign has experienced a notable surge in Utah, and the Independent Party candidate is already on the ballot in 34 states. By Election Day, that number could soar to 45.

RELATED: Evan McMullin: We Must Seek Honest, Wise Leaders, Not Merely Those the Party Gave Us

Glenn and McMullin discussed the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and serious issues like Russia, ISIS, border control and the economy.

Read below or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What qualifications does McMullin have to handle the economic crisis?

• How will McMullin's CIA experience help with fighting ISIS?

• What are McMullin's positions on personal and business taxes?

• Will McMullin force companies to return to the U.S.?

• Where did McMullin earn his MBA?

Listen to Part 2 of Glenn's most recent interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We are talking to Evan McMullin, candidate for president. He is a candidate -- will be a candidate in 50 -- or, 45 states by the time this is over.

Let me give you a couple things, Evan, to talk about. Because, you know, people don't really know who you are. And we are facing some really bad scenarios coming our way. One, Russia has said in several different ways in the last few weeks that they are rattling the saber, saying that we're on the edge of nuclear war.

I don't know how much of that is true. But I do know that Putin -- do you know how who Dugin is? Aleksandr Dugin. Are you familiar with him?

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: Okay. Aleksandr Dugin is one of the advisers of Putin, a really dangerous guy. He has his fingers in the alt-right here in America and all throughout Europe.

EVAN: Oh, yes.

GLENN: So we have that brewing. We have Islamic jihad brewing.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: We have an open border situation where we don't know who is in this country.

EVAN: Right.

GLENN: And then today we have this: HSBC, the head of the technical analyst department for HSBC has said we are now on red alert for an immanent selloff in stocks, given the price over the past few weeks. He says the pattern shows that we are headed for something at least as bad as 1987.

What experience do you have -- we know you have now CIA experience, global foreign relations experience, but what experience do you have on the economy and finance?

EVAN: Well, you know, I attended the Wharton school, earned an MBA there, and then went on to work in finance at Goldman Sachs. A -- a bank that, you know, is very --

GLENN: Oh.

EVAN: -- is very controversial. But I'll tell you what I did and what I learned, which I think are lessons that all presidents should know. And that is what it takes for companies to thrive in this global marketplace in a way that they can create jobs here in the United States, good-paying jobs. I worked with leaders in industrial companies. Companies that make airplanes and airplane parts here in the United States. I worked with technology companies. I was in California, San Francisco. I worked with companies and consumer package products, in health care. But I learned so much about so many different industries during my time there. And they all have different needs. And they all face different challenges.

But presidents should know these things. Presidents should know that we need government, for example, to get out of the way in order for our economy to thrive.

You know, the number one thing I heard from business leaders when I was working with him in that role is that they had a lot of capital on the sidelines, they would say, that they couldn't or didn't feel comfortable investing in new jobs and new equipment, because they were worried about regulatory uncertainty or a regulatory burden, even if there wasn't uncertainty, just the burden of regulations.

So that's a huge problem we have. I mean, there's so many others -- the corporate tax rate and others. But, you know, we've got to have a president who will signal to the business community that this company -- this country is going to be open for business, that companies are going to be able to thrive.

And part of it, also, Glenn, I just have to say this is that we've lost sight of promoting a truly open market. We've got way too much crony capitalism. I saw it with my own eyes, when I was the chief policy director for the House Republicans.

You know, we have a government that's sort of geared towards helping big corporations. But -- but that -- you know, but advances policies that stifle the small- and medium-sized company, that can't deal with these regulations. And so why is that such a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because it harms competition. And because of that, it harms innovation. And innovation is the lifeblood, one of the lifebloods of our country. We need a more open economy. We need to get rid of crony capitalism. It's a huge problem. But we will not thrive unless we make some of these changes or all of them.

PAT: We're speaking to Evan McMullin, independent candidate for president.

Evan, this is Pat. You know, in addition to going to Wharton -- whatever, but you also attended BYU. Right? And I saw you last week or a week and a half ago at the game. And, you know --

GLENN: We have 40 minutes with the presidential candidate and you're going --

PAT: And being a Cougar fan is one of his most impressive attributes.

GLENN: Right. Do you have a real question?

PAT: But you also have been -- you've worked really closely -- like you said, you were the chief policy adviser for the House. And so what are your -- what's your position on taxes, in a business and personal taxes?

EVAN: Oh, on businesses, I think we need to lower the corporate tax rate. I said 20 percent. The reason that's important is we need our businesses to be able to reinvest in technology and in equipment and in jobs. That will make our workers more productive, which will mean their salaries will go up, which will mean other companies will want to be here because --

PAT: So you're saying you're going to force companies to come back to the United States of America.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: What do you think of that idea, Evan? What do you think of that idea, forcing companies, government forcing companies to come back?

EVAN: Well, so let's take a look at Donald Trump's idea, right? So he says, okay. Company X moves to Mexico and starts producing its wages there. So he's going to put a tariff on widgets that come from that company into the United States.

Guess what's going to happen? That country -- or, that company is just going to go to another country where those tariffs don't exist and produce the widgets there. I mean, that's -- it's just so ridiculous. What we want to do is have an open economy that attracts people, companies willingly to come here. That's how we've thrived in the past. That's what we need in the future.

STU: Evan, it's Stu again.

I had an interesting thought or realization the other day, I think, which was, we had this really big debate. We all fought about it in 2009, over this -- Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. We all thought it was a terrible idea. And 787 billion, you can remember it because we said it so many times, it was such a big number.

We have Hillary Clinton now proposing a new $275 billion stimulus, which no one has talked about at all, and probably because Donald Trump has promised to more than double it, over $550 billion.

He also proposed this new child care and family leave situation, paid for maternity leave and things like that paid for by the government, that the new estimate that just came out from a right-leaning think tank was $680 billion in cost.

We fought so hard against the $787 billion stimulus, but no one is thinking about these sorts of things anymore.

What is your approach on government spending to stimulate the economy and for new entitlement programs?

EVAN: Oh, my goodness. Well, listen, on stimulating the economy, I just have so much faith in the ingenuity of the American, in the -- just the grit that Americans have to create and to build. And that's the strength of our economy. It doesn't come from the government. And the more we think it does and the more we use entitlements and other programs to try to spur economic growth through the government, the less free our economy is. The less open it is. The less competition we have. The less innovation we have. So, look, it's just a fundamental thing.

In order to thrive, we've got to -- we've got to create an environment where people will take risks, where people will innovate. And we can't do that if we're growing the size of government. Therefore, taxing people more. Therefore, depriving people of their economic liberty, which is just liberty. And all of these things are connected.

So new entitlement programs, no, thank you. We need to reform the ones that we have. We do have some important programs that form an important safety net. But they're on autopilot. Congress doesn't even review this spending on an annual basis, if ever. Hardly ever they do.

And right now, it's over -- entitlement programs and our interest on debt that we pay every year is over two-thirds of the budget. If we do nothing, if we stay on our current path, it will be 78 percent of the budget in ten years.

And so we've got to make reforms. And we can do that so that we keep our obligations to people who are retired now and who are retiring soon.

But for people like me who have got decades more of work, let's -- you know, we're going to live longer. Let's increase the retirement age gradually, let's phase it in. And I think we need to do means testing too -- if I'm super wealthy, which I'm not, but if I were, I wouldn't need to collect Social Security. Let's make sure that we have that safety net for people who really need it. Let's just be smarter with our entitlements so we don't burden the American people with an overwhelming -- an overwhelming amount of debt and taxes.

GLENN: Okay. So, Evan, are you available tomorrow at about this time? Do you know? Can you make yourself available?

EVAN: I'll have to check with my team. But I would love --

GLENN: See if you can make yourself available. Here's what I'd like -- because here's what I've heard from you. I've heard a lot of great things, but I've heard your resume. And I can think like the person at home. And they -- what they've heard is, wow, okay. He's got some great background stuff. But on the flip side, you are former CIA, which can mean I'm for foreign involvement everywhere, entanglements, war, yada, yada. Continuation of what we've already done. Two, I used to work at Goldman Sachs, which means to some people I'm for the bank bailouts and cronyism and Wall Street and the fed.

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: I know. I know. I'm just -- but this is what I think your resume screams.

And then the last one is, I also was with the House. Well, the House was for stimulus and the bailouts. And they didn't repeal Obamacare. A lot of people in the G.O.P. despise the American -- you know, the average American. And so what I would like to do, because I don't think it's fair to ask you -- to throw that on you and then say, can you give me a two-minute answer.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Can you come back tomorrow and tell me what sets you apart in foreign policy from the -- the entanglements that have caused this mess --

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: The Goldman Sachs that are for the cronyism and the bank bailouts and the Federal Reserve just being -- running unchecked, and the House Republicans, what sets you apart from those three things that we hear in your resume? Would you do that?

EVAN: Well, I would love to come back. I just -- because, you know, Glenn, I don't control my schedule.

GLENN: I know. I know.

EVAN: But I will check with my team. I would love to come back. Chances are, we'll do it because this is an important, you know, discussion to have.

But very briefly, I'll just say, on foreign policy, I have said that I think the Iraq War was a mistake. I believe we do need to lead in the world. But I believe we can do it with less blood and treasure. And we can talk about that. I'm happy to talk about that.

With regard to my time at Goldman Sachs, look, I'm not here to represent Goldman Sachs. But I struggled -- I was raised in a lower middle class family. You know, we couldn't turn the heat on in the winter. We worked very, very hard. Parents worked three jobs. I know what it's like out there. And, you know, I'm not wealthy. I've worked hard for everything I have. And I had an opportunity to work at Goldman Sachs. And I learned a ton. I'm not here to defend Goldman Sachs in any way or the bank bailout, which I opposed and all of that.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: But I will say that I learned things there that every president should know, period.

As far as my time in the House, look, I was asked to come back and serve. I answered that with a yes, and I did come back and I served. I fought unauthorized spending. I fought mandatory spending. I fought to reform the VA's health care system.

You know, you got to engage. And, you know, that's what I've done. And I've served for most of my life this country.

GLENN: Okay. So tomorrow, if you can, and if not, we'll schedule it some other time, but if you can, I'd like you to focus -- we'll spend the same amount of time, and I'd like to focus on those three things: Foreign entanglements, the cronyism of capitalism and Goldman Sachs kind of image, and where you differ from the House Republicans, which we have -- I feel this audience has fought those guys perhaps harder than we had to fight the Obama administration. And we'll continue the conversation.

EVAN: Yeah, yeah. All right. Looking forward to it.

GLENN: What's your website? Evan, what's your website?

EVAN: Yes. Yes. It's EvanMcMullin.com. And if you want to go to that principled document, which I hope you will, go to EvanMcMullin.com/principles. And you spell McMullin with an I-N at the end, not an E-N. EvanMcMullin.com.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Evan. I appreciate it. You should buy the E-N domain name too. You should get EggMcMuffin.com

PAT: Have them all. Yes.

GLENN: You should have them all. Anyway, now, this.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin talks to to the media after announcing his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/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.