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

Glenn interviews Rick and Karen Santorum

September 07, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Former GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum and his wife Karen phoned in to radio today and talked with Glenn about the Democratic Convention and President Obama’s speech last night. Why were the Democrats so focused on talking war and not the economy?

Read the transcript of the interview below:

Rick Santorum and Karen Santorum are on the phone with us now. Karen, Rick?

VOICE: Good morning, Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. First of all, can ‑‑ how's Bella doing?

KAREN SANTORUM: Oh, she's doing great. Thank you so much for asking. And it was so nice to be with you and Tania the other night. I should have shared with you her picture. She's beautiful and healthy and we just thank God every day for her life.

GLENN: We had ‑‑ we had dinner in Dallas, what was it, two nights ago? And ‑‑

KAREN SANTORUM: Yeah, it was so fun.

GLENN: Yeah, we had dinner with this roomful of billionaires. I mean, we were the two couples that were like, we were the slugs in the room. And you guys were running for president just a few months ago. And we're sitting in this room and they're billionaires but they all were broke in the Nineties, all of them.

KAREN SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: And we talked about one of them said, you know, I had to push my hill ‑‑ my car down the hill to jump, you know, to get it ‑‑

PAT: Start?

GLENN: Yeah, pop the clutch on it to get it to start?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I thought the best one, Glenn, was when he said he had to turn in his toll tag when he ‑‑ because he used a 50 cent toll when he went to work but he turned in his toll tag because if he hadn't used the toll tag, it was 55 cents. So to save 5 cents a trip, he turned in his tag and paid his cash.

GLENN: Now, these guys ‑‑

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: These guys ‑‑

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: ‑‑ said, I had to cancel my call waiting because it was $3 a month.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: He turned in his toll tags because it saved him an extra 5 cents a day. That's how broke they were in, like, 1996. They're billionaires now. And we were talking about, look at this country. Look at what you can do. And Barack Obama and the Democrats don't believe that any of us exist. Or that any of us are putting anything of value into our society.

We've been talking today, Karen, about how the Democrats really focused on foreign affairs and war and everything else, and they think this is going to be a winning strategy for them. I think they're wrong. I think the economy's the only thing that matters. But you have, with patriotvoices.com, a new poll that you have seen. Can you tell us about the poll? It's of mothers, right?

KAREN SANTORUM: There was a recent survey of American mothers and what it revealed was that a majority of mothers believe that this country is on the wrong track and they are very concerned about national security issues. You know, President Obama's number one responsibility is to protect us and I think what this study's showing is that he has failed miserably and moms care about that. They care about security.

GLENN: Let me just show some of the polls. The top three concerns of moms in America: Unemployment, most concern, 42%; high gas and energy prices were the number two; and third choices of the moms, hay gas prices directly responsible, energy prices. The president is on record saying his policies would make energy prices necessarily skyrocket. The cost of groceries. The average grocery is up 15% in the last 18 months. But there are some other things here. 73% of mothers are concerned about the type of nuclear strategy that President Obama might pursue.

SANTORUM: Yeah, this is ‑‑ I'm sorry. Let me jump in there.

GLENN: Go ahead.

SANTORUM: That really has to do with this whole conversation with Medvedev, that he'll be more flexible on the START II treaty which gives Russia a built‑in huge advantage on tactical. It's a huge advantage, you know, 10:1 advantage over the United States. And it's now a built‑in advantage that Barack Obama negotiated and agreed to. And said that, you know, he was going to be more flexible. And I think this, I'm convinced that they brought this issue up is because, you know, that swing vote. A lot of these moms are very concerned about this issue of security and they look around the world and they see the hostility and the brewing anger and the hatred for America and our weakness, the president bowing, the president whispering that he will be flexible and they see weakness of this president and they don't want a president who's willing to sacrifice the security of our country so expend more money on entitlement programs.

GLENN: 78% of moms think the United States should increase offshore drilling. 79% of moms think government regulations need to be trimmed to incentivize people to start small businesses are expand existing ones. 53% of moms say it was inappropriate for President Obama to tell Israel that it should alter its borders. 62 of moms are concerned that President Obama said transmit this to Vladimir to President Medvedev. When informed that ObamaCare cuts Medicare funding, only 12% of moms thought that was a good idea.

This is all upside down for the president. What do you think this means in November?

KAREN SANTORUM: I think it ‑‑

[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ].

GLENN: Wait, wait.

STU: Double response.

GLENN: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

STU: Communication between spouses is very important.

GLENN: We've got to talk to you about this. Are you guys even in the same city or the ‑‑ are you guys in the same area?

SANTORUM: Yeah, we are at the airport. We're just about to take off.

GLENN: All right.

SANTORUM: We're headed to Denver.

GLENN: You're not flying American Airlines, are you?

KAREN SANTORUM: We're not going to do that again, Glenn.

GLENN: Good. Thank you very much. All right. Tell me ‑‑ Karen, let's start with you. What do you think this means in November?

KAREN SANTORUM: I think it means that moms care more about just (inaudible). The overriding issue of concern for most of them was jobs. About half are concerned equally with energy and then the national debt and protecting America from the outside, from outside threats was huge. And I think that, you know, a lot of times moms ‑‑ I think it's an insult to women, too, is that we just care about abortion or the life issue. And it goes so far beyond that. It's ‑‑ I think that the moms care a lot more about a broader spectrum of issues, and I know for me personally and all the moms I've talked to, national security is a big deal. And, you know, things like, you know, the nuclear threats, electromagnetic pulse, things like that. You know, once moms are educated on that, they share their concerns.

GLENN: Rick?

SANTORUM: I would throw on top of that that, you know, the reason Obama talked about this last night, because it's a weakness for him. And America doesn't feel better about itself. You know, remember Obama's going to bring back this age, not only are the fees going to go back down but America's preeminence in the world and how people looked at America was going to go up and prestige was going to increase and he was going to get the Nobel Prize and it's just been a complete nose dive since then and that's a real problem because people do look at a president as someone who is, you know, respons ‑‑ that's the one thing the presidents are responsible for and that most Americans look to him with respect to our security.

GLENN: You know, I'm feeling really optimistic about the election but I was really optimistic about your election as well. So do you have any feelings, either of you, on where you think this is headed? How's Romney going to fare? Is Romney going to win or not?

KAREN SANTORUM: Oh, I'm praying he does. I'm concerned because of those issues that we're not talking about that we should be talking about and, you know, we're obviously hoping and praying he gets through. I think four years of Obama would be devastating to our country. And the effects, you know, may not be reversible. So we all just need to work really hard to help Romney get elected. But personally I'm concerned that I wish we had more issues to talk about.

PAT: Yeah, I notice that you guys have skipped the most important issue, Rick, and that's the issue that you started was the incredible war on women where you tried to remove contraception from all women and control their lives in every way. And I just, I find that missing here from the mom survey, too. They gotta be concerned about that, right?

SANTORUM: Oh, yeah, absolutely. There's a widespread fear that the government's going to come in and abolish birth control.

GLENN: Well, I have a bumper sticker. I have a bumper sticker on my car: Rick Santorum out of my fallopian tube.

SANTORUM: You have a bumper sticker on your car?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. I do. The real question there is, you have fallopian tubes?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I'm sort of ‑‑ I don't know.

GLENN: All right, guys. Thank you so much and have a safe flight and I'm glad to hear you're not flying American.

KAREN SANTORUM: Thank you, Glenn. Have a good day.

GLENN: Bye‑bye. Rick and Karen Santorum.

Patriotic uprising—Why 90% say Old Glory isn’t just another flag

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.

Hunter laptop, Steele dossier—Same players, same playbook?

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.