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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

How do you change the world - for good or for bad?

April 23, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn delivered a powerful monologue that took a look at how you can change the country - and the disastrous results that come when its done for the bad. When people are disempowered, they can no longer create positive change, but can at best do nothing and at worse destroy. How? He explained on radio and

"How do you change the world? You change the world one person at a time. You either ‑‑ you either empower them and you tell them that they make the difference, that they are responsible, that they play an important role and a leader builds them up through education and enlightenment and then shows them that they are the answer. That's what a leader does. And then gets out of the way," Glenn said.

"If you want to cripple a nation, what do you do? Well, first you crush the enlightened, you make sure that they don't believe in God or anything bigger than themselves and then you destroy the educational system so they don't, they don't ‑‑ they're not equipped to be able to even have rational thought anymore," he explained.

"Now, I tell you this because I want to give you an example of where we're headed and the choice that we have in front of, in front of us. I am convinced that we are facing the election of 1860. I am convinced that whoever becomes president of the United States needs to be Abraham Lincoln."

"Barack Obama has a portrait of Abraham Lincoln hanging in the Oval Office now. And that's who he says he wants to be like."

"Do we believe that he is Abraham Lincoln, that when the crisis comes that he will free people, or will he enslave them? Will he free them? Will he do the things that he needs to do to hold the union together? Is he a uniter, or is he a divider?"

"So (when America) was split apart, Abraham Lincoln was the one saying it can't stand, it won't stand. If divided, it won't stand. And he's begging: Please, don't do this, please, let's come together, let's come together. Instead, we have a president who is the great divider, not the great uniter. The great divider. He is trying to divide us in race, he is trying to divide us in class, he is trying to divide us now in sexual preference and sexuality. He's trying to divide us old and young," Glenn said.

Glenn then read a quote that had often been attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville (although some claim he was not the one who said it)

In the end, the state of the Union comes down to the character of the people. I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers, and it was not there. In the fertile fields and boundless prairies, and it was not there. In her rich mines and her vast world commerce, and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits, aflame with righteousness, did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

"Now let me show you how easy it is to cease being good. Would you say that the British people are good? I'd say generally speaking, yes. I think people, generally speaking, are good. It doesn't matter what country they are, but I think generally speaking, they're good. But that is being ‑‑ that's being pushed out of us," Glenn said.

He then told a terrifying story that showed where we as a country could be headed.

"In Great Britain a story that has been up on The Blaze for a while and I just can't get over it, and most people don't know it. And you need to know this story. There's a park in England that is ‑‑ that's got a big pond in it, and the pond is two feet at the edges, three and a half feet at the center of it, and it's a big pond, and it's in the middle of, you know, just a regular park."

"(People) were walking their dogs, they were doing what people do in parks and one guy was walking right there by the edge of this manmade pond. He has a seizure and he falls into the water face down. Now, this water is two feet deep. He falls into the water while having a seizure. People all get out their cellphones. They don't help him. They get our their cellphones and they start taking pictures and some of them call 999. That's the version of 911 here. Nobody goes into the water when you cease being good, you cannot be great. Nobody goes into the water to pull this guy. He's face down having a seizure in the water. He's not going to survive if somebody doesn't go into the water and pull him out. They don't. They wait for paramedics. The paramedics come 25 minutes later."

"Now he's clearly dead. 25 minutes later the paramedics come. As they arrive, there's a big crowd now watching this guy floating in the water. Nobody's pulled him out. And so what do they do? The paramedics and the police, the fire trucks, the paramedic trucks, the ambulance, they all come. Along with the police cars. And the first thing they do is tell the crowd, "Step back, step back," and they put out stanchions so people can't come any closer to the pond."

"Then the next thing they do is they start unloading the fire truck and they put together a medical tent. I'm not kidding you. See the pictures on The Blaze. A medical tent. And they put this giant medical tent in and they start equipping it with everything that they might need to save this man. In the meantime two paramedics start to go into the water. They are pulled back by a supervisor who says, "No, no, no, wait, wait, that could be hazardous. We don't know. Wait." It's now 45 minutes into it. The supervisors then tell exactly what the paramedics need to do. They get the guys from, I'm not kidding you, with wetsuits, SCUBA gear, and they get them all suited up to go into this pond that is two feet deep at the edge and three and a half at its deepest point. It's not good enough that they now have, you know, the SCUBA gear. Now the fire trucks take the ladder off because they want to make sure that the guys in the SCUBA don't get hurt. And so they take a ladder from the fire truck and they put it down into the two feet of water and they secure the ladder so the guys in the SCUBA gear can go down into the water on the ladder. How humiliating is this? They go down ‑‑ not both of them. Only one guy goes down into the water and he's given a pole. And he takes that pole and he rubs it against the ground as he's walking towards the man. He's stroking that pole against the ground, the bottom of this pond back and forth to make sure there's no hazards so they don't get hurt. Once he walks away of just a few feet, he looks to the other guy and says, all clear here. The other guy walks down the ladder and gets to his knees, to his knees. They're in SCUBA gear. To his knees. They walk over to the guy and they bravely pull him out. Paramedics take him, the guys in SCUBA gear are then on the ground, (huffing), "That's a tough one." The paramedics put him on a stretcher and carry him in to the medical tent where they examine him, 90 minutes later pronounce him dead."

More terrifying details on this story here

"How did that happen? How did that society turn into that? That society turned into that slowly over time. 'Don't do it. Don't help. Don't. You could get hurt. Don't. You don't want to get involved. Don't. Let's just get this on videotape.'"

"Nobody goes into the water to save this guy. Nobody. No one goes into the water and attempts to pull him out. Not one."

Glenn explained that society is slowly being nudged into a place where people are less likely to help. Regulations and rules have taught us its better to stand back and let the "experts" help, even when it will take too long for them to show up and do anything.

"I contend this is exactly what's happening to our society. They are trying to destroy our churches, our charitable feelings, our love for one another. They are trying to regulate us into oblivion so we don't think on our own."

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.