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

Monkey Bread, Crab Cakes: What Thanksgiving Recipe Is Your State Searching For?

November 22, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What are people in your state searching for as they prepare for Thanksgiving? A survey from General Mills had some surprising results.

The study looked at three popular recipe sites to find the top recipes people were searching for in each state from Nov. 1 to Thanksgiving of last year. Californians were apparently looking for a good mac ‘n’ cheese recipe; Illinois stuck to traditional mashed potatoes; and Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia all wanted to add some heat with buffalo chicken dip.

Iowa, Nebraska and Rhode Island were all searching for the same recipe. Listen to Doc and Chef Patrick’s chat on today’s show (above) to find out what it is and how to make it.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Hi, there. It's Doc Thompson in for Beck. And happy Thanksgiving. Hopefully you'll be getting together with family tomorrow. You'll have some good times. Hopefully you'll count your blessings, truly recognizing how much good there is in the world. We focus on a lot of bad, because it's frustrating. We want the world to be better. And I think most people want better for our fellow citizens, for our fellow man. And most of us are passionate about how to accomplish that. We know things like the Constitution lead to that good. And that's the reason we're so passionate about it.

But somewhere in there, our passion for the right to help people gets twisted just a little bit. Still driven by the same cause. We're willing to be meaner. More combative. And by we, I mean we.

I'm as guilty as anybody. I think if we take a moment and recognize that while we differ on the -- on the method, we still want the same outcome.

I'm not sure our friends on the left give us enough due. I think they really think that somehow we want some sort of society that we really don't want. That we really think oppressing people is good. Really racist, whatever.

But I for one, recognize most people on the left really want good stuff for people. I believe they're misguided. But they want good stuff. About you so on maybe we take a step back as we count our blessings and say, as F we're trying to accomplish (?) good things for the right reasons, let's make sure our methods are still good.

I know how frustrating it is. I've lived this every day. I'm on the air with it. I do the research. I see the social media. I live it every day. And it's really frustrating.

But good is good. Bad is bad. Stay focused on the good. Count your blessings.

Chef Patrick Mosher is with us. Obviously, a big favorite around the holidays. So do you cook on the holidays? Do you cook for your family? Because, you know, a lot of people they don't want to bring their work home. You know, mechanics, they don't work on their own home that often.

PATRICK: No. Cooking for family and friends is really why I do this. I love the restaurant industry and all that goes with that. But it bills down to cooking for the ones you love, absolutely.

DOC: So you still do?

PATRICK: Traditionally, I used to smoke one turkey and roast another one. Because we had such a big crowd. Not so much anymore.

DOC: Not so much anymore.

PATRICK: Yeah.

DOC: It's funny (?) on the holidays, I don't say a word. I'm like a mute. I don't I don't a a word. I get up in the mornings. Okay. Everybody knows that's not true. In fact, it's just the opposite. It's the same stuff here. I'm doing the same stuff at home. Challenging people. Challenging me. Political debate. I actually love good political solid debate. It's family and friends.

PATRICK: It's entertaining.

DOC: Now, when you're out and barbecue, let's say you're at a gathering, (?) cocktail party. And you're introduced to new people. You're mingling. When they find out you're a chef, they ask you, don't they?

PATRICK: Immediately.

DOC: You know, how do you make a --

PATRICK: What's your specialty? And when I say Japanese food, it's interesting. Ah.

DOC: Oh. Because they don't know what to --

PATRICK: White guy. Japanese food. It doesn't compute.

DOC: Plus, most people don't have a go-to Japanese dish.

PATRICK: Other than sushi, they don't know any other Japanese food.

DOC: Or ramen.

PATRICK: Or boxed ramen.

DOC: I can see that. Because doctors (?) they're like, I got this right in the back -- in the shoulder blade. Can you take a --

PATRICK: You know, I have these chest pains. (?) and it's in mean arm. It's in my Czech chest.

DOC: Can you take a look at it?

PATRICK: Yeah. Quick pop (?)

DOC: Look at this. It's down the side of my leg here.

PATRICK: Does this look infected to you?

DOC: Right. You're at dinner, right? That's got to be horrible.

PATRICK: That is -- I do get captured quite often in the food conversation. But --

DOC: It's still probably pretty good. Because you're passionate about it.

PATRICK: Anybody who knows me, knows that I love food. It's been my life for almost 30 years. I love to share knowledge and my passion for the food industry. And teach people that the food -- everybody at some point NBC life, (?), well, it probably would be cool. But it's also expensive.

DOC: Uh-huh.

PATRICK: Exhausting.

DOC: Yeah. If you're worth $450 million and you start a small restaurant and you can lose $100,000 a year, it's probably pretty cool. You get to go in, mingle, you own the restaurant. But when you got to make it balance or profit, that's where it gets tricky, right?

PATRICK: It's a 24/7 business. The average margin I found out (?) the average restaurant makes 4 percent.

DOC: So traditionally, in supermarkets, I'm going way back, the margins was percent, percent and a half. 2 percent?

PATRICK: Yeah. It used to be two. (?) somewhere in the one and a half range.

DOC: At one point in broadcasting, because Telecommunications Act of 1966 said that you could earn more than radio stations that you used to -- I think at one point you could own across the country 17 or 20 or something like that. But you could only own 1:00 a.m. or FM (?) you could own. Per market. Yeah. Ravioli and that's what -- I remember when some of those sold. Some of the stations I worked at. The profit margin was imagine if I told you it was 40 percent, would you think that's pretty good?

SHAWN: Absolutely. Yeah.

DOC: They were 70 percent. (?)

PATRICK: More power to them. I'm obviously in the wrong business.

DOC: The reason why it was 70 percent -- because they didn't pay Doc Thompson. They were like, it's all right. Kid. You can eat ramen, that's fine.

PATRICK: Wait. Where's my paycheck --

DOC: That has all changed somewhat. You just get on. And it works. So we're talking a little bit about Thanksgiving and some of the other things that people search for by state. And some of them seem pretty traditional. Some of them not. Give you some of the other ones. Maybe we'll hit your state here. Indiana, peanut butter cookies. That's kind of a holiday thing. (?)

PATRICK: At least it's a cookie.

DOC: Pin wheels. That's also a cookie. That's in Kansas. Cornbread (?) dressing in Louisiana. That makes sense. Chicken potpie in Maine. Maryland, crab cakes. You know what, I think they search for that all the time in Maryland. That's not a holiday.

PATRICK: That's year around because you can get them cheap.

DOC: Cheesecake in Massachusetts.

PATRICK: And New York. And being from New York, that's pretty common.

DOC: Makes sense. Michigan is chili. Odd choice.

PATRICK: It's really cold up there.

DOC: Minnesota, green bean casserole. Does anybody else have that? That's the only one?

PATRICK: I think so.

DOC: What is chicken spaghetti in Mississippi and also Texas. Chicken spaghetti.

PATRICK: I found a few recipes for that. (?) dish. Which I think you would just substitute turkey for that. But it's made in spaghetti than turkey.

DOC: (?) oven roasted vegetables for Montana. Nevada, peanut butter cookies. New Hampshire, blueberry pie. Thank you, Kal. Blueberry pie. Although, New Hampshire (?) so maybe.

PATRICK: Yeah, it's cold.

DOC: Crab cakes in New Jersey. Pecan pie in New Mexico. Sweet potato pie (?) that's an interesting one. In both Ohio and West Virginia, buffalo chicken dip.

PATRICK: Why not?

DOC: Have you ever had that?

KAL: That stuff is awesome.

DOC: Yeah. And checking account me -- it's shredded chicken with (?)

PATRICK: Mixture of cream cheese, heavy cream, and main ace.

DOC: And it's layered in there?

PATRICK: No, you mix the whole thing (?) served on baguette or toast. Crackers. Whatever you have.

DOC: Oklahoma, pecan pie. I'm sorry. Pecan pie. Whichever. Oregon, bread stuffing. Pennsylvania, also chicken dip. That whole region, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania. Interesting. You know that he probably just found out about it. (?), yeah, we had that 30 years ago. We're like, have you tried this new thing?

PATRICK: Which is interesting. Because Ohio is typically the test region. I don't understand why. But it's the test region for new foods for the major food companies.

DOC: Yeah. Columbus, in particular. For some reason, demographically, it cuts across all of them. Midwest. But you're also east. You have older (?) just demographically, it's worked for them.

PATRICK: Well, you would think so, but no candidate has won that won the state of Iowa. So I don't understand (?)

DOC: No Ohio. Without winning Ohio. I think that's the history. Anyway --

PATRICK: So maybe you keep Ohio --

DOC: Yeah. (?) pumpkin pie. (?) sausage balls in Tennessee. Just like Alabama.

You've got crescent recipes in Utah. Crescent rolls. Butter nut soup. (?) sugar cookies in Washington. And then shrimp in Wisconsin. And Wyoming pork chops. And then I left out three states.

New Hampshire -- I'm sorry.

KAL: New Hampshire.

DOC: Appreciate you being there, even though I screwed it up. Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Iowa, all search for something that is an odd pick. Kal, have you ever had monkey bread?

KAL: Is that brain?

DOC: No. Monkey bread. Because you're thinking sweetbread.

KAL: Yes. Might as well be bread.

DOC: It's made with only part of the monkey. Not the entire monkey. You're giving me the look. It has nothing to do with monkey.

KAL: Like Rocky Mountain oysters?

PATRICK: Kind of. (?) I was a Boy Scout. Monkey balls instead of monkey bread. But it has nothing to do with monkeys. I don't know where the term came from.

KAL: What is it made of?

DOC: It's cinnamon bread.

PATRICK: Yeah, you are take any kind of a canned biscuit or Doe. You cut it into pieces. (?) and then you make a caramel mixture. So it's sugar and butter in the bottom of like -- like --

DOC: Your roasting pan?

PATRICK: Like an angel food cake pan. A buttoned cake pan. Then you put the (?) you roll them in cinnamon sugar. You put them in there. You bake it. You turn it upside down. I it has this wonderful. (?) it's actually really good.

KAL: That sounds awesome.

DOC: Yeah, it's fantastic or whatever. It seems like an odd pick -- it's not really a breakfast dish. It can be. Not as much as cinnamon rolls.

PATRICK: That you can serve (?) a lot of people with. That doesn't require a lot of preparation.

DOC: This is more, like you said, camping, or late at night, snacky thing. Maybe people are using it for all those. Maybe breakfast or even a desert then it could be used for.

PATRICK: Yeah. I suppose.

DOC: You know what, though, it's probably simple to make for a sweet dessert or whatever you're going to use it for, by comparison. (?)

PATRICK: You don't have to make a Doe.

DOC: You don't have to make the Doe --

PATRICK: It's sugar, butter, (?) those are the ingredients.

DOC: So you're already starting the Doe made. That probably works really well. That's interesting.

PATRICK: It's like the crescent recipes in the other states. Alaska and Utah.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.