Glenn Apologizes for Being a Catastrophist: 'We're Scaring the Hell Out of the Children'

That which you gaze upon, you become. Glenn has spent the last 15 years gazing upon the problems, albeit to sound the warning bell about the truth. But how does that inspire and give hope?

"I have fixed my eyes on Washington, D.C., the parties, the politicians, the economy, terror, loss of freedom, the culture, Facebook, all of it," Glenn said Wednesday on this radio program.

RELATED: Our Children Will Right This Ship. What Should We Teach Them?

Where should we fix our eyes?

"Believe in yourself and believe in God, and when you two are partnered, unbelievable things can happen," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these unapologetic questions:

• Why does Glenn refuse not to have faith in?

• Has Glenn changed or remained steadfast?

• Can we not only survive but thrive?

• Did Glenn help create the conditions that brought us Donald Trump?

• How can we inspire the next generation?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I may be the only person in -- may be the only celebrity, if you can even put me in that category, ever, to be abandoned my own fan club. I don't know if you heard this, breaking news.

STU: I have not.

GLENN: I got a Facebook post from the Daily Beck. Now, the Daily Beck has been around for how many years?

JEFFY: A long time.

GLENN: Long time. Okay. 38,000 members of the Daily Beck. It's a fan club, not started by me. Started by somebody else. Yada, yada. And they have disavowed me.

STU: Oh, no.

GLENN: And so now the Daily Beck has nothing to do with Glenn Beck. And they have disavowed me. So I am the only person, I think, to ever have a fan club that has voted them out.

JEFFY: Happy now?

GLENN: Yeah. So there you go.

STU: There has to be precedent for that.

GLENN: Oh, come on. Let me have this one thing.

STU: No, I will not. The Daily Beck.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. It's been around for a long time.

STU: Oh, really.

GLENN: Anyway, I bring that up because, A, I'm sad that people think I've changed. I don't believe I have. And I've done a lot of soul-searching on this for a long time. You don't do what I have been doing without having soul-searching. You read my Facebook page. Do you think that would cause somebody to think twice?

PAT: As I challenged on my Facebook page: Name one principle we've changed on. Name one.

STU: Wait. What was the big list? He didn't get a chance to give us a list.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. I want to get to my apology.

PAT: I can give you the list really fast.

GLENN: Stop it. None.

So at least me, I have done a lot of soul-searching over the last five years. And if there is a change in me, the change is this: I believe that some -- in some ways, not meant by me at all, I helped add to our problems of division. I didn't mean to.

Now, I've got people on the left accusing me of creating Donald Trump. And I'm like, "But I'm against Donald Trump. I warned against a guy like Donald Trump." Well, you created the conditions that grew Donald Trump.

"No, I didn't. I think it was the government -- both parties that weren't listening to the people, that the people got so frustrated they wanted to burn the whole thing down." That's a bad thing. However, I have been thinking about this a lot over the last few months, and especially the last few weeks. And I want to -- I have a new perspective. And I want to tell you that, A, yes, I have changed. I have changed. And I'm going to explain exactly how. And I want to apologize for the mistake I made. It was unintentional. I didn't see it.

But here's what it is. And I want to ask everyone to do soul-searching themselves on this.

I believe what I believe. And I've told you I'm a catastrophist. And that's not necessarily healthy for a country to have somebody broadcasting as a catastrophist all the time. But I believe what I believe.

I believe, you know, the parties are irreparably broken. They have gone past the point of no return for trust. We have lost trust in almost all of our institutions. We have an economy that is on the brink. We have a banking system that is on the brink. Our central banks -- you know, I don't know if you saw this, but China is now selling I don't know how many billions of dollars of our treasury bonds, yesterday.

I mean, it's substantial. They're starting to dump our treasury bills. I believe that we are -- we're facing a foe like we did with Japan and Germany: ruthless killers by the name of ISIS. We have a loss of freedom coming our way. Guns. Freedom of press. Freedom of religion. Freedom to choose our own doctors. You name it. We are facing real losses of freedom.

And so I've been ringing that bell. And I've been telling you, "This is going to end in disaster. It's going to end in disaster." No exits left. There's a cliff coming.

That's what I want to apologize for. I still believe that: there's a cliff coming. But that is such a hopeless message that I can barely survive. And it's because I have gazed upon the problems. That which you gaze upon, you become.

And I have spent the last 15 years gazing upon the problems. And I have fixed my eyes on Washington, DC, the parties, the politicians, the economy, terror, loss of freedom, the culture, Facebook, all of it.

I'm tired. See if you feel this way. You're worn-out. You've exhausted all of your options. You've lost hope. And the faith that many people now have is down to this: It doesn't matter anyway because Jesus is coming. Oh, well, let's put the party hats on. I feel better now.

Oh, well, it's the end of days. So good. Once we get past that sticky tribulation part, it's going to be great. That's your hope?

I can't live in that world. I cannot live in that world. And I don't think we're attracting anybody to our world, with that. Because, A, that's -- that's not true. B, it's a bummer. But, A, it's not true. There is change coming.

And I have told you this, more dramatic change, because of technology alone. More dramatic change in our lives coming in the next 20 years than in the -- than in the hundred years of the Industrial Revolution, all packed into a 10- or 20-year period. That's a lot of upheaval. People will lose their jobs and be displaced. And they will find new places to work.

We talk about Common Core and how Common Core is such a problem. Why? Because they're teaching all the wrong things. And they're indoctrinating our kids. That's actually not the problem. Let me come back to Common Core in a second.

So I want to apologize for being a catastrophist. I'm not apologizing for saying that these things are coming because they are. What I am sorry for is giving you the impression that there's no way to survive. Because there is.

The world has faced these times before. And every time, the people choose to be -- choose to live their faith. They survive. When they choose to move without the action that faith motivates, they are destroyed.

But a remnant goes on. We are acting without faith. We are -- and in those days, says II Timothy, people will talk about their faith, they will say that they have great faith, but they will not assign the power of that faith to it.

Because they're not living it. So those under -- those over 40, those my age and above, we have to do one thing: Stop scaring the kids. Because that's what we're doing. We're scaring the hell out of the children.

My poor kids, oh, my gosh, we're scaring the hell out of the children. And more importantly, we are doing what Common Core is doing. What Common Core does, is a group of elites have all got together and they have designed the future. And they say, "These are the things that your kid is going to do." And they're going to design your child from third grade to fit the job that they see in the future.

Well, that's not their job. That's not their right. What education is, is to give them the eternal truths so they can design their future. What we're doing is, we are allowing people up at the top to design a future for our children, that our children most likely will not want, would not design it that way. The future is being designed by people who are 70 years old, for children who are 20 years old or younger. Thirty years old. Adults that would never design that world.

But they're being trapped in that design. That's immoral. But it shows we don't have faith in the future, and we don't have faith in millennials. I do. I do.

I refuse to not have faith in the future. Now, anybody under 40, here's what you need to do: You don't believe -- first of all, don't believe in people. Don't believe in me. Don't believe in Barack Obama. Don't believe in Hillary Clinton. Don't believe in Donald Trump.

Believe in yourself and believe in God. And when you two are partnered, unbelievable things can happen. But beyond not believing in a man, don't believe my words or anyone else that tells you it's all going to burn down and there's nothing you can do. There's no hope. Because that is a lie.

Things are going to be tough. But things, somewhere in the world, are always tough. Every generation faces something tough. We survive this.

The key is: You can thrive. My generation will survive. But you can thrive. It's all happened before. You have to find the patterns of the people that made it through and emulate them. See how they solved it. Because it's not going to be solved in Washington. It's going to be solved by people like you, if you know what is eternally true.

I know this: God keeps his promises. He keeps his promises. And if you are living an unrighteous life, it will fall apart, and you will destroy yourself. Eventually, you will destroy yourself.

Look at Bill Cosby. If that is true about what he did in his life, all -- everything he worked for, now at the end, gone. Gone. He's known as a rapist forever. Everything he did in his entire life: over. That makes a difference.

If you live an unrighteous life outside of eternally true principles, you will destroy -- your life will fall apart. And that is the truth about an individual or a group of people. Eventually, it will fall apart.

But it is equally true that if you live the principles, you will thrive. You will break through. You will change the world. You will set the world free. And that's our goal, isn't it? Isn't our goal to make a difference?

I'd give up all money, I'd give up everything if I could just make a difference. I think most of us would. Millennials have seen us as parents, struggle. And they see what we're doing. And they don't want any part of that. Because they don't believe in any of that.

Millennials, you have to know the system before you distrust it. You don't know the Constitution. You have to know what it says before you distrust it. We are now teaching people just to distrust everything.

They have to come to that conclusion on their own. And if they live their lives with the true knowledge that God keeps his promises and they act with faith in the ways that faith and eternal principles demand that you act, they're going to set everything right.

They have to have hope. We have to have hope. We cannot create a pattern for them. They're going to take our cue from us. And if we have depressed them -- that's why nobody is flocking to us: because we're depressing the snot out of them.

Who wants to hear at 20 years old, "It's all screwed up, and it's not going -- it's all going to be over." Nobody wants to hear that at 20. We cannot take away their hope because that is their fight. We have to enforce them -- reinforce them.

We have to inspire them. And we have to tell them eternal truths. Because, quite honestly, they don't believe in any of the other stuff. Nor should they. They're not buying the lies that we, after being so worn down over a lifetime, have just grown to accept. That whatever Washington says we have to do -- whatever the party says we have to do, whatever the crowd says we have to do. They want to be different. Let's encourage them.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.