Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn: People are being destroyed by political correctness

February 03, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Way back in the early 1600s, scientist Galileo Galilei was sentenced to house arrest for holding the belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Inquisition, the tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church, persecuted Galileo and other scientists, banning their works and ideas. On radio today, Glenn took a look at the world political and cultural landscape today and wondered if history was repeating itself. Has the church been replaced with the state? Is anyone who disagrees having their life destroyed by political correctness?

Related: To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? Rand Paul grilled by host

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

GLENN: I had dinner last night with a friend who was not a friend of mine two years ago. Didn't want to be with me. And then became friends with me. He's on the left.

And his business partner, this woman, she hates me.

PAT: Still?

GLENN: Listen. Hates me. Hates me. Hates me. Hates me. Would like not -- I'd call his office and say, can I talk to him? Yeah, no, he's -- he's -- he's anywhere, but around a phone for you. So she didn't like me.

So last night, we have dinner, and I can just feel it coming off of her. And my friend brought her because he wanted her to listen to me. Be around -- because she didn't really listen. So she listens. She cries -- before we leave, she cries, and she says, I am so sorry. I am so sorry. I had no idea. We may not agree on everything. But I know who you are, and I'm in. I'll help you.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: I mean, unbelievable. And it's not that we agree on everything because we don't. But we're willing to sit down and say, where do we have common goals? Where do we have commonality? Where can we -- we have to stop the bickering back and forth. We have to stop name-calling. We have to stop -- we have to stop this. We have to stop trying to win. Because winning -- right now -- in the old days, we used to -- when the Republicans would win, they would get a bill passed and they would win, they would hold up and say, we won. And the Democrats would hold the same bill up and say, we won too because we got these things. And so everybody walked away a winner. Now everybody is walking away trying to crush the other one. It doesn't even matter if you get what you want in Washington. It does for the American people, but it doesn't even matter if you get what you want as long as we win and you lose.

I'm not interested in making somebody lose. I'm not interested in being vindictive. I'm not interested in punishing -- what was it the president said? Punishing our enemies? I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in moving forward. I'm interested in moving to common sense. I'm interested in moving in a direction of freedom. And so when it comes to these measles vaccinations, we have a lot in common with the left.

And we can't separate ourselves. We have to reach out to -- to allies that say, okay, I disagree with you on many things, on this, let's agree. Let's move forward on this.

PAT: Is it possible that the godless animals on the left love their children too? Is it possible?

GLENN: No, it's not. It's not possible.

PAT: No. We can't consider that. We don't have that in common.

GLENN: No.

PAT: We can't come together on this --

GLENN: They're just hatching children and then -- I don't know what they do it for, but...

PAT: Well, they do it for a tax write-off.

GLENN: I don't think they're interested in tax write-offs.

PAT: They pretend not to be, but they are.

GLENN: They're just that evil.

PAT: They're liars. All godless animals are liars.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat. I think you helped out a lot there.

PAT: It's great. But we have that commonality. We all want the right thing for our kids and no one wants measles to spread through the society. How can we possibly come together on this?

GLENN: Wait. None of us want measles. None of us want our children to have measles. Nobody wants an outbreak or somebody to die from measles. Let's have that as a baseline.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: However, we also don't know what's going on with autism. We don't know what is happening to our children and to our families. If you look at what the numbers were for autism 25 years ago to what they are now, and now they're saying.

PAT: Yeah, there's something going on.

GLENN: I don't know what's going on, but there's something. One in 300 now have autism. It used to be like one in 5,000. Now it's one in 300. They're saying, if this trend continues, by 2025, it will be one in every two will have autism. Well, I think that's concerning.

PAT: Very.

GLENN: And if you happen to be a parent and you say, you know, I'm sorry, God gave me a brain. God gave me personal choice and responsibility for those choices, I'm going to say no to those vaccines because I've done my homework.

It's not like -- nobody that hasn't done their homework says no to vaccines.

PAT: By the way. According to the CDC, about one in 68 children have identified with autism spectrum disorder. One in 68.

GLENN: Wow.

PAT: And you're right. It used to be something like one in 5,000 or greater than that before. Now it's one in 68. It's amazing.

GLENN: And that could be our food. That could be our environment. That could be -- it could be vaccines. I mean, there are -- there is research that shows that the vaccines somehow or another, are tied to some children having -- you know, going into --

PAT: It was that study in 1998 that threw a lot of people. And since, I think the doctor was kicked out of the medical association and it's been pretty discredited. And there's been a lot of evidence that they've thrown at us that is, no, it has nothing to do with it. A lot of people remain unconvinced because there's something going on somewhere and we don't know where.

GLENN: And the way to solve that is to not just brush it under the rug. Not to say, it has nothing to do with that. Science is settled on that.

PAT: And you're a moron for even thinking it.

GLENN: Right. That doesn't help. That won't convince anybody. Coming out and saying, yes, it might. We don't know. Now, let's look at all the evidence.

PAT: That's essentially what Obama was saying in 2008.

GLENN: Exactly right. Let's really look at all of the evidence. We all have a right to opinions.

Now, we also have a responsibility -- when we execute those opinions, we have a responsibility. So if you don't want to have a vaccine for your kids, then the community does have a right to say, you're not going to school. And you're going to have to home school. That's fine. That's fine.

I mean, we have a right as a community to do those things. We don't have a right to bash each other and say you're a moron and I'll strap you down to this table or I'll take your children from you. You don't have a right to do that.

I mean, since when? You know, Pat and I were you be talking about this. And I'd like to take some phone calls on this. We have a lot of great people who are on the phone already. I'm going to spend a lot of time on the phone today. But I'd like to hear. I'd like to make a list of all the people who have been discredited or destroyed in the last ten years.

PAT: By political correctness?

GLENN: By political correctness and by the political machine. On both sides. But look at how many people have been destroyed. This hasn't happened before in my lifetime. Here's another group of people that are now being rounded up and pointed at and being called morons and idiots and crackpots and crazies. Just totally discredited. If you stand -- if you stand out of line, where is anybody saying, my gosh, we're living in the days of Galileo. The church has become the State. And if you don't practice their religion exactly the way they tell you to practice it, you're done.

How many people have lost their jobs? Have lost their credibility? Start all the way back to -- the -- the -- the -- the auto bailout, with the GM dealers. Remember the GM dealers. All of a sudden they wake up morning, and the government says, you no longer have your dealership. What?

PAT: Mostly Republicans. Right?

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, that -- that was the beginning of this. And it just doesn't stop. We have got to unite. We've got to stand together.

I was talking to the chief rabbi of England, and he was so powerful. Man, he was one of the most powerful men I've met in a long, long time. And I said -- you know, I told him where I thought things were headed. And he said, Glenn, let me tell you what God is telling me.

And this was off the air.

He said: God is calling all of his children to stand together. Muslim. Mormons. Catholics, Jews, Hindu. Buddhists, atheists, all of them. We all need to stand together. Because evil is going to pick us off one by one. And unless we stand firm on a few basic principles that we all have in common, we ain't going to weather this storm. And he's right.

We have to reach out and start talking about basic principles that we have in common. Because those things work. And I'm sorry, if freedom is a crazy idea, as Rand Paul said, well, then, you go ahead and call me crazy. I will -- I will -- I'll proudly be deemed crazy for standing up fort freedom of choice.

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.