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

Frantic caller complains about Newt bashing

January 27, 2012
Wilson

Writer

One caller took issue with the amount of time Glenn is spending bashing Newt Gingrich -- the call spirals out of control because the caller just couldn't come to grips with the fact that Newt is a progressive. She refused to listen to anything Glenn had to say - how did that strategy work out for the caller?

Read the transcript of the call below:

GLENN: Hang on. We have Trish on the phone on Line 11 from San Antonio saying pretty much ‑‑

PAT: See?

GLENN: She's very upset at me. Go ahead, Trish.

CALLER: Oh, no, Glenn, I'm not upset at you. I have been, I have been the last week or so.

GLENN: Okay, but you're not?

PAT: Me, too.

GLENN: Go ahead.

CALLER: No, no, no. Well, my first question really, Glenn, is, you know, if you are going to promote Santorum, why have you spent 2/3 of the program going after Newt and giving Romney a pass on his progressivism?

PAT: We haven't given him ‑‑ we played ‑‑ we played the audio of it.

GLENN: We played the audio of it.

CALLER: Yes, Pat, yes, Pat, and then you made executions, oh, it was in 1994.

PAT: No, no. All of these Newt things were in the past, too. I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew this wasn't yesterday.

CALLER: Right, right. But we've heard two weeks worth of how progressive Newt is and we've heard nothing ‑‑

GLENN: Okay. Hang on just a second.

CALLER: Hold on. Hold on.

GLENN: No, wait, wait, wait, wait.

CALLER: Nothing about the gun control, nothing about the liberal (inaudible) in Massachusetts.

PAT: The gun control? Of what?

STU: Talking about Mitt.

PAT: Oh, Mitt. Okay.

CALLER: Listen. Listen.

PAT: This is a Mitt thing? Okay, well, let me ask you something real quick. Can I ask you something real quick?

CALLER: Okay. Sure, sure.

PAT: Why do you excuse everything from Gingrich, why are you doing the Gingrich thing to ‑‑

GLENN: You don't even know ‑‑ wait, wait, wait. You don't even know. Are you for Newt Gingrich?

PAT: Of course she is. Of course she is.

GLENN: We don't know.

CALLER: Actually, no. I don't have a horse in the race. Hold on. I was a Herman Cain supporter. When he got, I donated to Michele Bachmann. When they got out, I don't have anybody that represents me.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: I think Santorum did a great job last night.

GLENN: I think he did, too. We said that several times over the broadcast.

CALLER: ‑‑ promoting Santorum. Where are the clips of that?

GLENN: We're not ‑‑ we didn't ‑‑ hang on just a second. Hang on just a second. Hang on just a second. We're not ‑‑ we're not here to be anyone's PR person. I've said that to Rick Santorum, I've said that to the audience. I'm not here to ‑‑ I'm not here to get people to vote for Rick Santorum. I've told you who I'm for.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Who I'm for. I'm for Rick Santorum. That's my guy. If I had to vote today, I'd vote for Rick Santorum. I wouldn't vote for Newt, I wouldn't vote for Romney. I in the end ‑‑

CALLER: I got it. I got it.

GLENN: In the end if it's Newt Gingrich action I'm going to have a really hard time voting for him but it will probably be the Middle East that would make me vote for him over Newt ‑‑ over Barack Obama. If that's the choice, I... I really would want to vote for my shoe or my shoehorn or my phone or a lamp, but I'd probably do it for Newt.

CALLER: You know ‑‑

STU: Never vote for Obama, that ‑‑

GLENN: I would never vote for Obama.

CALLER: I'll say this, and I have spent more time defending Newt.

GLENN: Why?

CALLER: And I don't even agree with him.

GLENN: Why?

PAT: Why are you defending him?

CALLER: People are unfairly attacking him.

PAT: We are not unfairly.

GLENN: How are we unfair ‑‑ wait a minute. How are we unfair? Because let's get this out.

PAT: We're playing his own words!

GLENN: Yeah. Let's get this out because if it's unfair, we'll admit it right now and we'll correct it.

CALLER: Look, I had gone ‑‑ you know, when you started first playing things, because I don't, I don't really have a candidate that I feel represents me, I have been doing research. And I went straight to their voting records and to their policy records. And when I went and looked at that, I found that Mitt Romney is basically ‑‑

GLENN: Wait, wait.

CALLER: ‑‑ a clone.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

CALLER: No, no, no.

GLENN: Hang on. We were talking ‑‑

CALLER: ‑‑ to Mitt Romney, okay?

GLENN: I am not a Mitt Romney fan! I'm not a Mitt Romney fan!

PAT: I don't know how many times we have to say that.

GLENN: I don't know how many times I have to say that. I don't know what it is that you make ‑‑

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: You know some of the callers that come in ‑‑ hang on just a second. I've let you talk. Some of these callers that call in and continually insist that we're Mitt Romney fans really just piss me off.

PAT: The guy won't even come on the show!

GLENN: Yeah. I haven't talk to the guy! The guy won't come on the show! The guy didn't ‑‑ the guy didn't come to Israel, was one of the only ones that said he wouldn't come to Israel. I mean, what do you want me to say? I'm against his healthcare policy. I don't buy into his healthcare excuse. I do buy into his excuse on his flip‑flop of abortion. I don't think that one's a flip‑flop. I do think the guy is a big government progressive. I don't think he's a Theodore Roosevelt or Wilson ‑‑ what was it?

PAT: Realpolitik Wilsonian.

GLENN: Realpolitik Wilsonian. I don't think he even thinks of it that way. I think he's right on Israel. I think Newt is right on Israel and the Middle East. I think Mitt gets the Middle East. I think Newt gets the Middle East. I think Newt is an absolute progressive to the core, knows exactly what it means, knows progressivism exactly the same way I do. He has studied the history. He is a historian for Freddie and Fannie. He knows. He is also not a small businessman. He is not a bus‑ ‑‑ he's not ‑‑ he doesn't do business! Hang on. You didn't even listen to a word, damn word I said. I'm hanging up on you you Trish. You didn't even listen. You were talking .

CALLER: No. Listen to me, Glenn.

GLENN: You were talking.

CALLER: I'm trying to explain to you why people keep calling on Mitt Romney.

GLENN: I'm not going to listen. Hang up the phone, please. I'm not going to listen to you, Trish. If you won't listen to me, why should I listen to you? This is the problem with our country. This is the problem.

STU: I don't understand it. I mean, we have covered Mitt Romney's bad policies for not ‑‑

GLENN: How many, for not ‑‑

STU: Years.

GLENN: ‑‑ this time.

STU: Since 2007.

GLENN: Last time, too.

STU: Yeah. And 2007 we talked about it.

PAT: And that's the thing. We haven't talked about Romney as much because everybody knows where Romney is.

STU: Right. That's the simple formula.

PAT: You've already made up your mind on Romney.

GLENN: 24%, 24%, give or take, depending on where you are in the country, that like Mitt Romney. I have not met the person who's like, man ‑‑

PAT: I love Mitt Romney.

GLENN: Okay, no, I take that back. I've met Ann Romney.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: And she loves him.

GLENN: And she loves him.

PAT: She admits that?

GLENN: She loves ‑‑ she admits it.

PAT: Because I haven't even heard her say it.

GLENN: She's going to vote for him. Got it. I don't know anybody who is the passionate Mitt Romney person.

PAT: I don't, either.

GLENN: So why do you ‑‑

STU: We're not talking ‑‑

GLENN: The passionate one here is the Newt Gingrich supporters that go crazy.

PAT: Who completely dismiss everything we've said about everything he has said about himself.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: But the same thing on Romney, I don't get it.

GLENN: Tell me where it's unfair to quote a man. Don't you understand what you're saying? The people who are saying this, you're saying the same thing George Soros says. When I quote George Soros ‑‑

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're just being mean to him. No, I'm quoting him.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I'm playing the audio ‑‑

PAT: You're bashing him.

GLENN: ‑‑ of Barack Obama. "You're just bashing him." I'm playing his audio. Wait, what point is it not true? You loved it! You loved it when I did it to the progressives on the left. But when we start talked about the progressives on the right, it's strange how the media, the right media doesn't like that. How the ‑‑ how the Republicans don't like that. All of a sudden, "Oh, no, no, no, no. Shhh." Look, you either believe in principles or you don't. Now, I happen to be a very big anti‑progressive guy. I think there are people who say they're progressive, "You know, look, I'm progressive." We had Adam Carolla on. I gave him the same ‑‑ I gave him ‑‑ give him the same benefit of the doubt, and maybe I'm wrong, as I do with Newt Gingrich ‑‑ or I mean with Mitt Romney. I'd like to ask Mitt Romney about his progressivism, but he never accepts our invitation. Why do you think that's happening?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

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.