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

From radio: Santorum endorses Ted Cruz

May 24, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn welcomed Rick Santorum to the program to discuss what he has been up to since suspending his campaign for President as well as many of the local elections happening across the country. One race that Santorum expressed a strong interest in was the Texas Senate race, and on the radio show Santorum publicly endorses candidate Ted Cruz.

"Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States," Santorum said.

"I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues."

"And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now."

Read the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is on the phone. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning. How are you there, Mr. Beck?

GLENN: Very good, Rick Santorum.

SANTORUM: Good.

GLENN: You've got that bedroom voice like, I just woke up.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Like I'm well rested now.

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I'm actually out here on the West Coast and it's a little early this morning but, you know, we've been ‑‑ this is my third meeting so far, but I'll try to pick up the voice a little bit for you.

GLENN: Wait a minute. This is your third meeting this morning?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, yeah, third call.

GLENN: What are you doing now? Aren't you ‑‑ you lost, you know.

SANTORUM: Oh, sorry. I'll go back to bed.

GLENN: Shouldn't you be, like, relaxing and be like, "Yeah, I'm not doing anything. I'm in my ‑‑ I'm in my boxer shorts walking around the house. I got nothing going on."

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, that would be nice but if we ‑‑ no, it's been a ‑‑ it's been, you know, obviously a very different pace, you know, when you're on a campaign and doing the things that we had to do every day and to step back, but it's been an opportunity to spend a heck of a lot more time with the family, which has been a great thing and, you know, think about what we can do in maybe a different capacity to try to make a difference in this, as I said in every campaign speech I delivered. This is the most important election in the history of our country and just because I'm not out there on the frontline as a candidate doesn't mean that I shouldn't do like every other citizen of this country: Be as involved as I can in making a difference come November.

GLENN: May I ask you a question: We were talking on the air yesterday about Sarah Palin's endorsement, and everybody has endorsed now Orrin Hatch. Am I missing something? What happened with Orrin Hatch where all of a sudden now they're saying that he's a ‑‑ he's a small government "balance the budget" kind of guy?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have any insight on this?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I was surprised at that myself. I mean, you know, Orrin is a ‑‑ is a nice guy, he's a friend of mine, I served with him in the Senate. We had a very good relationship.

GLENN: Yeah, he's a nice man.

SANTORUM: But, you know, Orrin is not the kind of, you know, dynamic conservative leader that we really need, someone who's ‑‑ who's willing to get out there and take on the tough stances and really be a leader of a fundamental change in the way Washington does business. And that's what I'm looking ‑‑ when I look at candidates, because I haven't endorsed very many candidates going forward, and I've really taken the opinion that, you know, I'm going to step in races where I think you have really strong voices of people that you can trust to be principled politicians. And even if you look at two years ago, there's a lot of folks that got elected who became, let's just say not, not the kind of Tea Party reformers that ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

SANTORUM: ‑‑ they campaign to be. They get to Washington ‑‑ it's tough. I mean, I know it's very, very tough in that environment. But if now isn't the time, when we're facing fiscal Armageddon and financial Armageddon in this country, if you can't be tough now, when can you be tough?

GLENN: Can't.

SANTORUM: And that's why, you know, I've, you know, been scouring these candidates very, very closely and have really only chosen a few that I felt comfortable in accepting.

GLENN: Who have you ‑‑ who have you endorsed?

SANTORUM: Well, I endorsed Mourdock in Indiana. That was probably the ‑‑ that's the first person I stepped forward and endorsed. Again, I ‑‑

GLENN: Nice.

SANTORUM: Richard Lugar's a nice man, but just like Orrin Hatch. I mean, they've been there for 30‑plus years and ‑‑

GLENN: Part of the problem and you didn't get it done, you haven't been ‑‑

SANTORUM: Well ‑‑

GLENN: Like Rick, Jim DeMint was there and he has been fighting solidly. Solidly all these years trying to get things done and change the course. These guys have not been those pioneers.

SANTORUM: Yeah. I mean, and Jim is not a popular guy. I mean, let's just be honest about it. I mean, Jim is, within his ‑‑ the ranks of the United States, he is not a popular guy with his colleagues.

PAT: Hmmm.

SANTORUM: Because, you know, he holds their feet to the fire and he's endorsed people against, you know, folks that he has to see and work with every single day. That is hard, folks. I mean, that is really hard. And so I give him a tremendous amount of credit for it. And he's gone out and done what he thinks is right and I think that's what we have ‑‑ we have to look for in candidates, folks who can stand up. And I wanted to talk to you today because, you know, I felt like there's a campaign and a candidate that I've gotten to know a little bit more over the past couple of weeks and I've done a pretty thorough, thorough scouring of not just his record but the people that are around him and close to him, and I felt like I wanted to step forward today and support somebody and I thought, well, what better place to do that than to call the Glenn Beck show and tell the people about that.

STU: Is it Barack Obama?

SANTORUM: Gosh, you know, what a Blockbuster endorsement that would have been.

GLENN: Yeah, wouldn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: That would be. That would be a surprise. That would be newsbreaking.

SANTORUM: You'd jump off a Butte out here in Arizona, having done something like that. No.

GLENN: Who is it?

SANTORUM: Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States, and I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in ‑‑ on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues. And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, under ‑‑ in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now.

GLENN: Well, I tell you from your mouth to God's ears here on Texas, when is this primary? It's next week, isn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah, it's next week. And I sort of sat back and waited because this is a very interesting dynamic the way the race works in Texas. It's a ‑‑ you have to get 50% to win the election. If you don't, then the top two run off at a later date. And I was watching and looking and seeing how this race would develop and I think right now there's, you know, Ted has certainly emerged as the number two person to the lieutenant governor who has been the favorite and the person who's been spending enormous amount of money. And so I related Ted to another level, he's being outspent 4:1. I wish I was only outspent 4:1, but...

GLENN: (Laughing.)

SANTORUM: But still, you know, there's a kindred spirit when you're the underdog and being outspent and someone who's got the grassroots support and is out there working their tail off every day and, you know, that's the kind of candidate that I obviously, you know, that I was and I sort of gravitate to and so I'm pretty excited about being involved in his campaign and will be doing all I can between now and Tuesday to help him out.

GLENN: Right.

SANTORUM: And make sure that he is at least in that runoff. And who knows. Maybe he can surge ahead and pull off a big surprise and get to that 50%.

GLENN: Wouldn't that be nice. Rick, thank you very much.

SANTORUM: My pleasure.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again and stay safe. You're not done. I ‑‑ you're not done. Of course, you should be in your underpants right now and not be in all these meetings, you know, get a nap in because I don't think you're done with your service to the country by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks, Rick.

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.