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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Both Sides Are Being Played: It's Time to Renounce the Hate Because 'This Is All About 2018 and 2020'

August 16, 2017
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

I want to start by asking you, if you're somebody that needs blood, if you're somebody that needs to be angry, if you're somebody that needs to rub the nose of whomever in whatever, this is not the show for you.

If you're tired of all of this, if you think we're better than this, if you think we have to solve this problem, then this is the show for you.

But the way we're going, the world has gone before. The way we're going will end with either the communists rounding up and slaughtering those who disagree with them or the Nazis, rounding people up that disagree with them and slaughtering them.

I'm sorry. But I don't have a thing in common with these Nazis and the white supremacists. None of it. None of them.

My gosh, I've gotten in trouble on both the right and the left for talking about the evils of Nazis for the last 15 or 20 years.

I want nothing to do with them. And I also want nothing to do with the radical anarchist communists who show up in black masks with baseball bats and burn our cities down. I want nothing to do with people who are saying, "Our heritage is our white heritage." And I want nothing to do with people who are saying, "Our heritage is our black heritage." It's not!

We are humans. All of us. Each of us.

I can't take the left, and I can't take the right. I can't watch either side of the media anymore. Does anybody really care about our country anymore?

Please don't give me lip service. I about caused a panic in my own church, when I started teaching the 15-year-olds and I started asking them about, you know, "tell me what you know about the Bible and tell me that you know that Jesus is, you know, the savior. And how many people here, you know, firmly believe in the Bible?" And they all dutifully raised their hand. And I said, "Shut up. Put your hands down. No, you don't. How do you know that? How do you know that?"

If you can tell me a story about how you searched and searched and searched and how you prayed -- right now, you know it because somebody else has told you it's true. So how many people care about our country? Everybody is going to raise their hand. Really? So what is the tough thing that you have done? What's the thing that you have stood up against that made you a pariah in your own circle? Because I got news for you, it's not the left's fault and it's not the right's fault. It's all of our faults. All of us. We're all playing the same game. And if you're not man enough or brave enough to admit that, then I invite to you stay with us. But as you say in AA meetings, when somebody comes and they have fallen off the wagon and they're still drinking, "You know what, this is probably a good meeting for you to just listen."

Americans --- and hear me --- Americans, and I believe it's 90 percent, but let's be totally crazy. I'll say it's only 70 percent --- 60 percent. Only 60 percent of Americans. And I think that number is wildly wrong.

Most Americans don't want anything to do with the Nazis or the anarchists and the communists. Nothing. They have nothing in common. They despise them both.

Most Americans --- and, yes, that includes the left. And, left, if you happen to be listening, that includes the right. We want nothing to do with it. They're both crazy, dangerous, and racist, period.

And here's what's happening: The media, because they hate Donald Trump so much, and the right media, because they hate the media so much, are giving America a false choice.

You don't condemn Donald Trump, really. Not even the Nazis. You don't condemn Donald Trump. You are choosing the side of the Nazis. And if you don't defend -- on the right, if you don't defend Donald Trump, then you're a communist anarchist that might as well be burning down Berkeley.

Neither of those are true. That's not our choice. You with the black nationalists or the white nationalists? I'm not with either of them.

The Democrats co-opted a very small sliver of radicals that despise capitalism, that despise America, that despise white people, that despise the cops. They co-opted them, thinking they could control them. They'll bring them in because it will add fuel.

Now, right, if you're shaking your head right now and going, "Yep, that's exactly what they did," you'll shake your head even more when I say, "And they lost that battle. They have lost their soul. Those guys are the heart of the party, not the average Democrat, but the party."

Now, let me speak to the left: And you're going to shake your head. And the Republicans are all going to be pissed. But the Republicans did the same damn thing. First of all, it was the Republicans that started the progressive movement. So they've had progressives in their ranks from the very beginning. But what have they done in the last three years? They've co-opted the alt-right. Because why? Because they're racists? No.

Because every vote counts. And so we'll use them. And what's happening? The same thing that happened to the Democrats.

And why did each side do it? Because it drives money and it drives votes. Hate drives money and drives votes.

And so where does that leave the average person? Well, 80 percent of Americans haven't seen a wage increase. Most Americans have their kids in a school that they know is not preparing their children for anything, other than politically correct living, other than living in a Marxist state. It's not preparing them for anything.

There's no actual education happening. There's a re-education happening in our failing schools. And, you know what, don't tell me that that's a thing on the right because the left knows it. Watch the lefties talk about education at TED talks, where they condemn the failing American education system.

The left knows it too. We both do. None of us can afford college anymore for our kids. Barely any of us can afford health care anymore. That's what's happening with 80 percent of the nation. Maybe more.

Are you seeing those people reflected at all? No.

Instead, both parties are doing their best, just trying to get reelected. This is all about 2018 and 2020. This isn't about anything else. This isn't about you. This isn't about real problems. This is about 2018 or 2020. Period. That's all this is about.

Dividing and spreading lies about 50 percent of the population -- well, I want to make sure you understand: If you're watching the left media, they're lying about 50 percent of the population. And if you're watching the right media, they're lying about the other 50 percent of the population. The truth is, there's probably 10 percent of those freaks on the right and 10 percent of those freaks on the left. And the rest of us want nothing to do with them.

It's why I reject both parties, and I reject the media. Both right and left. I want nothing to do with you.

I will remove myself from the game happily before I lose my soul. Can I just ask -- I don't need to ask you because I know the average American gets this. Can I ask those who are engaged in this insane death game, how does this end? Play it out, how does it end? Does it end in race riots, civil war, global war? Your side winning in 2020, whichever side that is? And then -- and then we really get them? What do you do with the remainder of the people, the 40 percent that just will not go along?

Well, first you have to demonize them. Oh, we've already done that. Then what do we do? You shove and then you shoot.

Now, maybe 20 percent of the United States is effing out of their mind. Maybe the country has gone out of its mind crazy. But I am sorry. I do not believe, because I have too many friends on both sides of the aisle and the issues, that disagree, who are afraid of their own side. They are seeing where this is leading, and they want nothing to do with it. So maybe it's 20 percent that's crazy. But that leaves 80 percent of us who want nothing to do with it.

We all want our children to have health care, food. We all want our children to have a good education. I believe we all want our troops to come home. We want an end to the endless wars.

I want justice for the wronged. I want an end to racism. It's never going to leave us. Because that's a human trait. But we can do better than we are.

I want an end to poverty. It's never going to leave us. But we're the most charitable people that have ever lived. I want freedom for people who are enslaved today. There are more people enslaved today than in the entire history of western slavery, combined.

I want an end of oppression. I want an end to government and banking and corporate corruption.

I want the truth of American history to be known. I don't think there's been anybody on the right, perhaps in the history of the right, that has tried to do more to expose the bad parts of our history. To expose how racist, how dangling, how ugly we have been.

But you can't just tell that part of the story. That makes the glorious parts of our history better. We reached beyond the slime. We reached above ourselves. We saw something better.

I want history taught. I want the bitter. I want the sweet. I want the bad cops to go to jail. I want them to go to jail. But I want the good cops to know, "I can't begin to understand your job. But as long as you're on the right side of the law, as long as you're on the right side of human decency, I got your back." I want compassion on the border. But I also want justice and law and order. I want you to live as who you want to live as, love who you want to love, worship God, don't worship God, and we can live side by side.

How do we not agree on some of these big things? I want you to know, I'm going to say some things today that are going to make both sides uncomfortable. Good. Good.

Then I've done my job. And no more.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.