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

Stephen King, massive hypocrite

January 28, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Updated: Glenn addressed Stephen King's hypocrisy Monday night - watch it in the clip above!

Notorious horror author Stephen King has decided to publicly bash the NRA for apparently promoting violence. He said they should have to be the ones who clean up the blood and ‘guts’ in the next shooting. For a supposedly brilliant it’s quite difficult to understand how he does not see the hypocrisy in this statement.

Transcript of segment is below:

GLENN: Plenty of gun advocates cling to their semi‑automatics the way Amy Winehouse and Michael Jackson clung to the stuff that was killing them. This is according to Stephen King in a 25‑page essay called "Guns. Guns. I don't like guns." It's a ‑‑ it's amazing. He says to claim that America's culture of violence is responsible for school shootings is tantamount to cigarette company executives declaring that environmental pollution is the chief cause of cancer. It took ‑‑ it took more than one slim novel to cause these teenagers to do what they did. Yeah, one, one slim novel? Don't you do, these ‑‑ Stephen King is the only one who can churn a book out faster than I can. And everybody's like, geez, my gosh, Glenn Beck is writing another book? Yeah, mine aren't 8,000 pages long. He's got book after book after book, and tell me the sweet "Cuddle by the fireplace and read to your children" books that he has created. They're all bloodbaths. And he says, "One only wishes that Wayne La Pierre and his NRA board of directors..." oh, please. Wayne, please make me an honorary board of directors, make me ‑‑ I'll empty the garbage. Please, I'd wear it as such a badge of honor, such a badge of honor to be ‑‑ I count it as one of my ‑‑ I might even want to have this engraved on my tombstone: Lifetime member, NRA, currently trying to make it post‑lifetime member.

So anyway, he says, "One only wishes Wayne La Pierre and his NRA board of directors could be drafted to some of those violent scenes where they would be required to put on booties and rubber gloves and help clean up the blood, the brains, and the chunks of intestines still containing the poor wads of half‑digested food that were some innocent bystander's last meal."

PAT: Good gosh.

GLENN: This guy's bad.

PAT: He's sick.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

PAT: Sick.

GLENN: Remember this is a guy who says all people in the military are stupid. Do we still have that?

PAT: I think so.

GLENN: This is a guy who says, you know, if you want to be ‑‑ you know, if you want to be in the military, don't read. Just be stupid.

KING: I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is that if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you got the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like...

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Oh. So if you can't read, you have the Army. This guy is an America‑hating ‑‑

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ military‑hating dirtbag. And I hate it because I like his work.

STU: Yeah, he's one of the ‑‑

GLENN: I mean, he's one of the best writers, you know, of the 20th century. He's a great horror writer. He's great.

STU: But one of the most purely stupid political commentators in existence.

PAT: Oh, no question.

GLENN: He is just an idiot.

STU: Every time.

PAT: And to blame the NRA for this. When he pumps out the books and movies he pumps out, he's got no culpability for any of it.

GLENN: Here's the reason why: Because he knows, he knows that the culture of violence ‑‑ look. You have the American Pediatrics, you have the American Medical Association, you have every single study that has ever come out say ‑‑ any credibility, they all say movies and violent games with kids lead to these things. Not in all cases.

STU: And obviously the vast, vast minority of them.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But ‑‑

GLENN: But your brain is not formed. Your brain's not set really until it's like 25. But up until, like, 13 or, what is it, 10 or 13, it's really, you're laying new pathways down. You start to put this kind of violence and stuff, it changes the way you process stuff. And so it's proven. It's proven fact. And yet nobody wants to talk about this. And so he wants to make sure that he's the guardian. He's the guardian of the gate. "I'm Stephen King, after all. And I mean, I've written about shootings and guttings and everything else." He's poured it into your mind, and he's done it well. I read Stephen King novels. Scares the crap out of me. Although, you know, Stephen, there is another writer. I mean, I know you want to be the king of all scary writers. There's another writer. Who was the guy who wrote that book? Oh, man, I can't remember. I only read half of it. Scared the ‑‑ makes ‑‑ it makes Stephen King look like the president. Makes him look like a girl. You're a girl. Demon Game, Devil's Game? I can't remember. Scary.

So Stephen is out now. All he's doing is carrying all of the water for the culture, for those who want to put violence and blood and everything else in the culture and say that there's no effect. I'm sorry. I'm not saying regulate you. I'm not saying ban you. I'm not saying regulate the movies. I'm just saying be responsible, that's all. I don't want to put you out of business or anything else. Be responsible. And understand as a consumer be responsible and understand that this is affecting your children. Once your ‑‑ once your brain is formed and everything, some people are going to take, you know, Catcher in the Rye and they're going to read Catcher in the Rye and they're going to be like, "Oh, I've got to go kill somebody." Okay. Well, that's just because they're crazy. But when it comes to the youth, it does make a difference. I don't want more regulation. I don't want more power. I want the power to remain with the people, and I want the power of the people to be able to go, "You know what? Stephen King is an ass. Stephen King is an idiot. He might write a good book but I don't need to give him any more money," you know, or not. Again, I read his books, or used to. I read his boobs. I think he's a great writer. I like his stuff. I think It's one of the scariest movies, until you find out it's a stupid spider, you moron! You make us read 800 pages and you give us a spider in the end?

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Man!

PAT: Thank you. That had to be said.

STU: Yeah, no.

PAT: Had to be said.

GLENN: I'm a lifetime member of the NRA and I didn't even think about picking up a gun and coming and stalk you, my friend. And after 800 pages, you give me a spider. If the NRA membership made me a killer, you'd be long gone, brother.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: Spider!

STU: But nobody has a higher opinion of Stephen King than Stephen King.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: I mean, this guy thinks he is the greatest thing ever.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

STU: And he constantly is commenting on topics like this and he's just a more ‑‑ in his own, in this essay he talks about how it's the NRA, it's the people like these that cause these incidents, it's not the culture. And then he talks about how he pulled his own book off the shelf because it kept popping up at school shootings. It kept popping up with all these violent teenagers and so he pulled ‑‑ I can't remember, Rage maybe was the name of the book, but he popped ‑‑ he pulled it off the shelf because he was worried about its impact on children.

PAT: Wow.

STU: But the culture isn't at all a problem.

GLENN: No, uh‑uh.

PAT: And Carrie is like a lullaby. That's like a lullaby for kids.

GLENN: The Shining? The Shining is great.

PAT: All of these bloodbaths that are just horrifying. Those are just sweet little tales. It's really the NRA that's the problem.

GLENN: The Stand. The Stand.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: It's a love story. It's a love story.

PAT: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: You'd think that this guy would realize, you know, he's seeing that he wrote The Stand, that he's practically setting up the kingdom of Vegas. I mean, you're on the wrong side, Steve. You're on the wrong side. Come to the other side of the mountains.

STU: No, stay over there. I don't want you.

GLENN: Yeah, you're right.

STU: Seriously.

GLENN: I know how it ends. Go over there. We don't want you.

STU: I don't remember that book, but ‑‑

GLENN: We should never give up. We love you, Stephen.

STU: Well ‑‑

GLENN: We'd love you over here. We really ‑‑

STU: Well, I don't know what "over here" means but if "over here" means I have to talk to him in the next 50 years, no thanks.

GLENN: I'd like him to change his mind. I'd like you to ‑‑ I'd like you to find happiness. I'd like you to ‑‑

STU: That's up to him.

GLENN: I'd like you to find it.

STU: Good luck.

GLENN: You know, there in Maine. Not down here in Texas.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: But if you can find it in Maine ‑‑

STU: E‑mail us.

GLENN: ‑‑ e‑mail us. And I'm hoping before I get that e‑mail, we're hit by an EMP. I'd rather be foraging for food in garbage cans after an EMP than read your e‑mail saying, "I found Jesus."

STU: You find that, just ‑‑

GLENN: No, he's going to find him and it's going to be great and I wish him all the best of luck in finding Him. Now I'm ‑‑ you know what, Pat?

PAT: Hmmm?

GLENN: We should ‑‑ we should send the boys and bikes over to his house. I know where he lives. We should send the boys. Because I care so much.

PAT: No, I'm sensing some of that from you.

GLENN: We should call ‑‑

PAT: I'm sensing that.

GLENN: We should call every night every time you see one of those commercials on TV, call for your copy, "Hi, I'm Stephen King."

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: "I know you guys have come over to my house every day for the last four weeks, but this time..."

PAT: But this time I really want you here. I really want you here. And don't even listen to me when I say I don't want you here.

GLENN: Don't take no for an answer. Come in and sit down.

PAT: I think I might be possessed by demons. So make sure that you just don't listen to what I'm saying.

GLENN: Please ‑‑

PAT: That's just the demons talking.

GLENN: Please do it. Please do it.

STU: I'm calling you now because this is my one moment of sobriety for the day.

GLENN: I need help.

STU: When you come, I'm going to be hammered and I'm going to resist. Please, listen.

GLENN: I need your help. Listen. Please, help me, help me. Bring some Catholic priests with you. Bring ‑‑ heck, bring some Jehovah Witnesses with you. Just keep coming to my door.

PAT: I like that.

GLENN: Yeah. See?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That's ‑‑ and that's what Jesus taught.

PAT: Right. Yes. Be persistent.

GLENN: He was like, "Don't give up. Be persistent." I highly recommend. Get his address. I'm making a call the next time I see the ad.

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.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

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.