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

If athletes really want to protest, here are some stories they could focus on...

December 10, 2014
Wilson

Writer

Well, hello, America, and welcome to The Glenn Beck Program and TheBlaze. I’m Stu Burguiere, filling in for Glenn.

Finally, some big-name athletes are taking a stand. Lebron James, Kyrie Irving, and a few other NBA players wore “I can’t breathe” shirts during warm-ups last night, and in recent weeks, several players have given a nod to the “hands up, don’t shoot” mantra from Mike Brown protesters. I don’t know about you, but I’m all a tingle to see professional athletes finally make a political and social statement like that.

Sports had been one of the few remaining places I could escape from the craziness of our day-to-day, the insanity of the news, and whatever other struggles we have going on in our lives and just sit back and enjoy the show. But thankfully that’s over now, and we can look forward to the game and a message too, a lecture or a political statement. I can’t wait. And who wouldn’t want to get their political messages from people who specialize in bouncing and throwing balls?

Before you get all negative and say sports is finally ruined forever, think of the positives. Okay, there’s really none, but who knows, maybe some good will come of this trend. Since they’re concerned about making black lives matter, maybe we’ll see this very soon. I mean, it’s really possible, right? I mean, I can see this happening.

In New York City, black babies are more likely to be aborted than born. Over 31,000 were murdered, while only 25,000 were actually born. In the past 10 years, 16 million black babies have been murdered. Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, that’s only three individuals, but if abortion were illegal, the black population by some estimates would be 36% larger. That’s more people than the population of every single U.S. state, except four: California, Texas, New York, and Florida.

Here are some other possibilities. What about this? You know, everyone loves the Constitution, right? Can’t you see Reggie Bush coming out with the Second Amendment shirt? Possible, right? Benghazi, I mean, people want to draw some attention. I haven’t seen a lot of the Benghazi shirts. I don’t think people want shirts with Hillary Clinton’s face on it. That might be the possible reason for that one.

How about this one, just a good old classic 'don’t tread on me'? That could happen too. Maybe the story of 22-year-old Chris Lane, who was murdered for simply being white will finally gain the notoriety it deserves. And I know I’m getting a little carried away with my expectations here, but perhaps this trend means we will finally see the day when someone has the courage to stand with the victims you never hear about, celebrity dudes who’ve been raped.

Shia LaBeouf, he held a days-long art exhibit where he sat in silence and let people come talk to him one on one. And during the “performance,” he was tragically raped. Since he wasn’t allowed to say anything, you know, for the art, he had to sit there and endure this rape. That’s a huge problem for celebrity men. The last thing a 20-something-year-old guy expects to deal with when they become famous are herds of gorgeous women who will do anything, literally anything, to hook up with them.

These men just want to focus on their careers and charitable endeavors and of course their art. Can you imagine having to fend off dozens of supermodels everywhere you went? It’s a horrible, horrible life, and it’s time someone takes a stand with Shia LaBeouf and all the male celebrity rape victims out there. I know I’m going to go to a field soon and see this, #Iammalecelebrityrape. We can only hope.

I am getting a little ahead of myself. Little baby steps, baby steps…we’ll take what we can get at this point. Maybe we can get someone to hold this sign up, you know? Oh yeah, “I’m not stoopid,” yeah, that’s kind of a reference to Jonathan Gruber, who was on Capitol Hill today for congressional hearings, and he was thoroughly grilled by Trey Gowdy and others and rightfully so.

He’s the ObamaCare architect who was caught on camera repeatedly bragging about the purposeful lack of transparency and relying on the stupidity of the American voter to get it passed. Remember this classic?

VIDEO

Gruber: …just like lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get anything to pass.

Stu: It was. Most of the mainstream media didn’t pay much attention, but it’s a pretty damning statement. Naturally, Obama and Democrats distanced themselves from him.

VIDEO

President Obama: I just heard about this. I get well briefed before I come out here. The fact that some advisor who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run.

Stu: He’s just a random advisor, barely even knew he existed. Nancy Pelosi said she didn’t even know who he was. Of course, the problem here is, remember, this is 2006, okay? 2006 Obama, he disagrees. He said he stole ideas liberally from Jonathan Gruber at a conference where he spoke with Jonathan Gruber. And look at Nancy Pelosi’s Gruber-induced schizophrenia.

VIDEO

Pelosi: I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill, so with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill.

Stu: So when he was an unknown MIT professor, they loved him. He was the toast of the town. He gave the credibility of MIT. In fact, he even made a comic book starring himself that explained how wonderful ObamaCare really is. Do we have the comic book, please? Thank you. Oh, here it is. I could get you a copy of this really cheap, really, really cheap.

Look at this. You flip through, you get all the superhero…look at them. There’s monsters, and monsters are going to scare you. There’s our hero, Jonathan Gruber. See, he’s the smart one with the glasses, and he’s talking to all the idiot police officers and the stupid ambulance drivers about how they don’t know anything about healthcare and all the dumb voters and the morons, and he’s the smart one telling us all the truth about healthcare.

Of course, he now admits he was lying the whole time. On the back cover, you have endorsements from John Kerry and of course Center for American Progress as well. Now that he’s been exposed as just an arrogant progressive jackwagon, they play dumb. But forget all the politics of it all. Money talks. How much did they think this guy was worth? His salary should give some clues as to whether he was more architect or some advisor we don’t even really know. Here was his answer on Capitol Hill today.

VIDEO

Rep. Jordan: I don’t care what you were informed, Mr. Gruber. I care about what I’m asking you is how much money did the taxpayers, state or federal, pay you to have you then lie to them? That’s what I want to know.

Gruber: Over this fiscal year and the previous fiscal years—

Rep. Jordan: No, total. I mean, look, look, this has been a five-year ordeal with this law. We want to know how much you got from the taxpayer and then made fun of them after you got the money and lied to them.

Gruber: I don’t recall the total.

Stu: Who would know? I mean, if people pay you millions of dollars, you’re going to know? The arrogance really was infuriating. He absolutely knows how much money they paid him, and Americans are absolutely owed an answer, but instead he goes crawling to his attorneys. That’s our money. Just man up and tell us.

Of course the reason goober Gruber didn’t want to reveal how much taxpayer money he received is because he got filthy rich—$400,000 from DHHS, 2 million from NIH, 1.74 million from the DOJ. The DOJ? What the hell is the DOJ paying this guy millions of dollars for, seriously? A hundred thousand dollars from the State Department, and then various states also paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars. All told, we paid this guy $5.9 million to bring us ObamaCare, among other fabulous projects.

Sounds like a high amount for “just some advisor,” but then again, the government has never been accused of frugality. They pay millions of dollars for toilets. Maybe they thought Gruber was a porta potty. I’m not sure. Let’s not forget, by the way, that ObamaCare is a complete and total failure. There are some 40 million uninsured in America. Seven million “allegedly” are enrolled in ObamaCare, but 4 of those 7 million lost the plans they were already having, they are ready paid for, and they liked, and they were told that they could keep. So that means this giant, massive government program designed to cover, I don’t know, 40 million people is covering about three, and we’re the stupid ones. What a waste.

Maybe that’s something we can look forward to seeing future athletes protest. I hope so. Back in a second.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.