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

Job application for Canada’s CBC: any race (except caucasian) may apply

May 03, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Video of the interview will be posted shortly

Glenn read quite an interesting ad played by the Canadian government during their children’s broadcast on CBC asking for anyone of any race (except caucasian) apply. Would that be legal in the United States? Apparently it’s totally cool in Canada. Glenn interviewed Sun News's Brian Lilley on radio this morning about the story.

Transcript of Interview is below:

GLENN: Brian Lilley from Sun News, kind of our sister in spirit, Sun News, to TheBlaze up in Canada, been taking on the monstrosity that is the CBC for quite some time and a good, decent, good, decent man. Brian, how are you, sir?

CALLER: I'm doing well, Glenn. Doing well.

GLENN: Good. I'm glad we can talk to you over the vast space between Texas and Canada, especially from the NRA convention which is surprising to probably most Canadians, actually was founded based on the Canadian shooting organization back in the 1800s because Canada had one of the best shooting organizations in the world at the time and the American Civil War generals came up to Canada and said, "Hey, can you help us? Because we suck at shooting down here."

LILLEY: You know, it's funny that you're speaking at the NRA because I'm on my way to speak to the National Firearms Association kind of a sister in spirit group here in Canada, although a lot smaller, and that's one of the things that I'm going to be telling them along with the fact that we've got to keep fighting back against the crazy gun control that we have. And, you know, I'm one of the few voices up here that will say that, unlike the CBC, which is all about more gun control, more gun control, more gun control. We used to be as free as you, and we're far away from it now, but I'm worried you're heading down our path.

GLENN: No, I think we are. I think the cart may get in front of the horse here and we may be rolling down that hill and catching up and passing you very soon. We wanted to talk to you a little bit about Kids CBC. And we don't even know if this is legal in the United States. We wanted to know how everybody in Canada feels about this. There was an ad for the Kids CBC that says, "Hello, if you're here to find instructions regarding a self tape audition submission for the Male Kids CBC host, you're in the right place. Below you'll find a PDF with the audition material and all of the instructions. Please only submit if you match the following criteria: Male between the ages of 23 to 35 years and any race except Caucasian."

LILLEY: But you forgot the most important criteria, the one that comes after that: Nonunion. I mean, that's really the one that's causing consternation on the left. Nonunion. How dare they.

GLENN: Nonunion? Let me ask you this: Are people actually in Canada, has everybody in Canada - because this is where we're kind of headed, so many Americans are just kind of going dead inside and you're like, oh, the president allowed another ambassador to be shot and killed and this time they carved up his body and carved him into steaks and roasted him there at the embassy and ate him on live television. Huh. And we move on. You guys, is this causing any kind of stir up there?

LILLEY: Well, you know, it's causing a stir with my audience. I talked about this on Sun News the other day, I wrote about it on the website. It's causing a stir on talk radio. So all the same usual suspects that would create a stir with in the U.S., it's creating a stir here. But CBC is this billion dollar PBS on steroids. It is the state broadcaster, although the current state, the current Canadian government is headed by conservatives. So they hate their pay masters because they are an extreme leftwing organization. So all the other media, the big newspapers that also lean left, they are kind of mentioning this but they don't want to push it too much and, you know, oh, well, kind of got caught. The officials at CBC said, well, it was a mistake; it shouldn't have happened that way. We just wanted diversity.

PAT: Jeez.

LILLEY: And, of course, that's code word for don't hire whitey.

PAT: Yeah, anybody but a Caucasian like they specified now in the ad. Now

GLENN: We just wanted diversity. Think of that: We just wanted diversity. But what you did was you were honest and you said no Caucasian. So there's no diversity

LILLEY: Just hiring one guy. So how are you going to get diversity?

STU: (Laughing.)

PAT: Wry an, we were saying that

GLENN: You could hire our president.

STU: There you go.

GLENN: And we'd be willing to let you have him.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Cheap. We're willing to let him go cheap.

STU: We'll pay you.

PAT: While it is, it is illegal in the U.S. to discriminate based on race, we were figuring that nobody would make a big deal out of it here in America. So nothing would probably be done. Is it illegal in Canada to do that?

LILLEY: Well, like you guys, you know, we don't have the Bill of Rights. We've got the Charter of Rights. And it says you shall not discriminate based on race, creed, color, blah, blah blah, all the usual things that we're supposed to all hate.

PAT: Yeah.

LILLEY: But hey, progressives don't play by the same rules. And when progressives do it, it's different.

PAT: Yes, it is.

LILLEY: So, you know

PAT: Yes, it is.

LILLEY: affirmative action programs should be unconstitutional in your country but I'm pretty sure state law, or University of Michigan law, you know, they've got a very extensive affirmative action program that made a lot of headlines a little while ago. This is the same sort of thing. Our federal government still has programs where they will say certain jobs are only for women or only Aboriginals or Indians can apply. We've got a, you know, only visible minorities can apply for this one.

Just yesterday our largest province, Ontario tabled its budget. Here's another example of progressives don't play by the same rules. Our uber left premiere brought out a budget. This is a government that has attacked the big tobacco. Big tobacco's evil and we've got to stomp out smoking and get farmers to stop growing tobacco and you're not allowed to even see cigarettes when you walk in the store anymore. They all have to be hidden behind a curtain or a door.

GLENN: Sounds like Michael Bloomberg.

LILLEY: Well, if Indian smokes, they're going to help you sow it better because Indian smokes are health food, I think.

GLENN: (Laughing.)

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: All right. Brian, God bless you, man. Thanks so much. And please say hello to everybody at Sun News because you guys are doing a tremendous job. How is your expansion going?

LILLEY: Well, we went before our regulator. Here in Canada everything's regulated. And it was a little rough this week but we hope to hear in about two months time whether we get to go forward or whether we get to, I don't know, look for (inaudible).

GLENN: So what does it mean, how does it work up there? What do you mean you look towards you had to meet with your regulator? What do they do? How does this work?

LILLEY: We're trying to get an improved license. We've got to we've got such a concentrated industry that's in bed with government in ways we could not do what you've done at TheBlaze up here. You could not start an online network and then go to the cable companies and say, "Hey, carry us." You'd have to get a license first to broadcast.

PAT: Wow.

LILLEY: And then you'd have to meet all these crazy conditions including promoting multiculturalism and yada, yada.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Just when I think that maybe someday you'll have to

PAT: Just when you think it's gotten as bad as it can, you realize.

GLENN: You look up to Canada and say holy cow.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Well, Brian, thank you very much. And as always, anything we can do to help you and help the expansion. We have, you know, we have been friends and our networks are friends, but more importantly our countries are friends and anything we can do to help Canada, you just let us know. Thanks, Brian.

LILLEY: All right. Thanks, Glenn, all the best.

GLENN: Bye bye. I'm thinking about I'm thinking about applying at the CBC.

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

Glenn unveils CIA’s grim Dire Wolf conspiracy

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Trump’s Liberation day unveiled: 3 shocking takeaways you need to know

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.