Glenn: It's time to start focusing on principles and faith, not politics and religion

October 23, 2014

Writer

Below is a transcript of this segment:

So this morning, I came in and, quite honestly, my heart was full of anger this morning. My heart was full of anger because I'm tired of religion. I'm really, really tired of religion.

Let me say this: We used to say don't talk about religion and politics. It always leads to trouble. May I suggest that that is something we really need to consider again. We shouldn't be talking about religion and politics. Glenn, you're on a radio show, you don't talk about politics. We talk about principles.

The problem with politics and the same with religion, everybody uses it as a game to win.

I'm winning for my religion. My religion is right. Your religion is wrong. You don't know. You're a bunch of sinners. You're going to hell. Oh, my gosh, you're deceiving. Shut up.

It is our understanding of religion - if we really understand our religion and we really actually practice our religion, maybe we're going to be okay. But religion is really important because it defines our doctrines and it defines what is it that we believe and it helps us live our faith. But if we start concentrating just on our religion and not our faith.

Remember, religion is to help us live our faith. The same thing with politics.

I hate politics. I hate politicians. Why? Because they've forgotten the principles that actually the parties used to stand for something. I honestly don't know if they ever did. But in principle, they were supposed to stand for something. And those things helped you further what you believed in.

But now, it's all about the win. Now it's either just about baptism. I got to win. I got to win. I get to get you into the waters. Come to my church. Your church is bad. My church is good. What? You got to stop voting for the Republicans. You got to vote for the Democrats because we care about children, we care about poor. We care about this. You guys don't care about that. No, you don't care about that. We care about the poor. We care about the people down at the bottom. You're hurting those. -- Shut up both of you.

What are your principles? What is your faith? Those things we can unite on: principles. Those things will heal the world: principles and faith. But we all spend too much time watering the weeds. You water the weeds and expect flowers to grow? Flowers are not going to grow. We're watering the weeds.

Every plant, every thing that wasn't planted by God - meaning, everything that doesn't fall in line with universal principles, universal truths - will be uprooted. You don't need me to do it. I don't need to go out and uproot it. I feel like I'm too small. I can't effect anything.

I was talking to Dan one of our writers this morning in the hallway before I came in. I said, people write to me, and they Facebook me, they tell me thank you so much for what you're doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I don't know what I'm doing. I'm no different than you, you don't know what you're doing. We're doing the best we can. We just get up and then we do it again tomorrow. That's what we're doing. We're all doing the best we can.

And all of us are made to feel insignificant. All of us are made to feel like we're not making a difference that we'll never make it.

You won't make it unless you play the games, unless you water the weeds.

Why?

You won't make it unless you vote for this person. You won't make it unless you go to this church and you adhere to this doctrine, not that doctrine, this doctrine.

What?

What are the things that are essential, essential for me to be able to make it? What are those things? Because I will bet you that we agree on 99.9% on those things when you strip the label off it. Republican, Democrat. This church and that church. Forget about politics and religion. Let's talk about faith and principles. When we strip off the labels off them. And you were talking to an alien [because[ the only person you would trust now is some alien that you thought, okay, well, they don't have an agenda. They don't really know. So you would answer an honest question.

Everybody else: Well, what do you think? These politicians now on the campaign trail: Do you agree with what the president has done? Do you agree with his policies or not? It's a yes-or-no question. Give it to me. Yes or no, do you agree or not?

I know that there are subtleties. I know there are things that you will agree and disagree. Yes or no, on the whole, do you agree or don't you agree?

The Republicans: I don't agree! I don't agree! Of course, because they have to say that because of the way it looks. Because we have signaled that we have an attention span, and I'm not kidding you, an attention span four seconds shorter than that of a goldfish.

And so you can't say, well, I actually disagree with him. I do disagree on these things. We can't, because all the sound bite is, I don't agree with him. I do agree with him.

And the other reason they don't answer that question is because they don't have the balls to answer that question. They're not willing to actually suffer the consequences of what they believe in because they're about politics and not policies. They're about religion and not faith.

So as I sit down this morning and I'm going over all the things that we can talk about today, I see the real important things. The shootings up in Ottawa. What's happening to us? You know what's happening to us. You know what's happening to us. We have been infiltrated. There are those who believe in the radical teachings of psychopaths. Psychopathic Islam. Radical Islam? No. Psychotic and psychopathic Islam. Let's start being a little more clear. They're not radicals. They're psychopaths. They're here.

Last night if you happened to watch 'For the Record', you saw they're here. They're in Boston. We're telling the story of the Boston imams and the Boston mosque and the Boston council of Islamic relation or whatever the hell that is. Nobody up in New England wants to tell this story. Nobody in the press has the courage to tell this story except a few.

Most Americans don't have the courage to look at the story. Why? Because I can't do anything to change it.

That what you gaze upon, you become. Are we watering flowers or are we watering the weeds?

Nobody ever says if you have cancer, you know what you need to do, go home and concentrate cancer. What you can do is concentrate on cancer and where exactly it's eating at you. What I would do is spend all your time reading about cancer.

Laugh. Live life. Concentrate on the positives. You want to think about cancer? Concentrate on how it is being eaten and destroyed by you, not that it's eating you. That you're eating it.

Are we doing that as a people? Are you doing that as a person? I sure the hell am not.

We bring you stories of cancer. Instead, we need to bring stories of how cancer is being destroyed and eaten and how it's being eaten and that there is hope on the horizon. And more importantly than those stories that show the cancer being eaten, stories that just are good. Stories that are uplifting. Stories that you unite us, don't divide us. Faith over religion. Principles over politics. Those stories.

You know, the days when everything was grass fed. In the days when nothing was manufactured. You went out and you killed it, and then you ate it. Couldn't eat certain animals.

So here comes this carpenter. He's a carpenter. You're a carpenter, do you even know how to read and write? Let me tell you what the law is. The law is: You don't eat these things. And the carpenter says, you know, it's not really the things that you eat that destroy and defile you. It's not the things that go in your mouth, it's really the things that go out of your mouth that defile you.

What a condemning statement that is. What a condemning statement that is for those feminists that absolutely jumped the shark. Feminism is over. Mark it down. It was the six years old dressed as princesses being taught how to say the F word. That's jumping the shark. That's the end of feminism. What woman looks at little girls and says, that's right. No woman worth her salt. No mother wants to be a part of that. That's anger.

Why do men generally, why are they the ones who say go to war? Because we're the ones who are much more prone to anger. Look at what the feminist movement has done. It is not what's going in, it's what's coming out that's defiling them.

So I'm talking to Pat and we're sitting here. And we're like, okay, what do we talk about then? What do we talk about today?

There's a lot. But if I believe my faith, if I want to practice my faith, then I better watch what comes out of my mouth.

I better have the faith that says: Anything that God hasn't planted is going to be uprooted.

Not because of me. I mean, I will be involved. He uses our hands, our backs, our bodies, our brains. He didn't just put prescription bottles down in the ground with antibiotics. That is a miracle from God, but he used us to develop it.

But as I look at the world and what is happening and to be able to point the fingers and say, you want that to happen here? What happened in Ottawa is coming here. You know it and I know it. It's coming here.

We can ring the bell. But pointing the fingers, I'm not sure isn't watering the weeds.

And before I went on the air, I opened up my favorite book and read this: Let them alone. Let them alone. They're blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, they're both going to end up in a ditch. Leave them alone.

Let's not end up in a ditch. They're blind. They're blind. And they're leading the blind.

Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about faith. And maybe, we should listen to our parents and what they taught us.

Don't talk about politics or religion because nobody wants to hear it. It only leads to arguments.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep