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

Gay activists bully business that did nothing, now they've shut their doors

April 02, 2015
Staff

WRITER

A local news reporter went trolling businesses in small town Indiana and chose to enter a small pizza shop, Memories Pizza. She asked the store owners what they thought of the RFRA bill. When they said that they believe anyone has a right to believe whatever they want, but they were a Christian establishment and wouldn't be catering gay weddings, well...let's just say the liberal media made the story go viral in the worst possible way. Now they've been forced to close their doors amidst a series of threats from the tolerant left.

ABC57 reported:

So, when Governor Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, the family was not disappointed.

“We definitely agree with the bill,” says O'Connor.

When ABC 57 asked O'Connor about the negative backlash the bill has been getting for being a discriminatory piece of legislation, she says that's simply not true.

“I do not think it's targeting gays. I don't think it's discrimination,” says O'Connor. “It's supposed to help people that have a religious belief.”

After receiving threats for simply stating their beliefs, they've been forced to close their doors.

In response to the story, Dana Loesch and her team set up a GoFundMe page for the pizza joint last night. By this morning, it had raised over $60,000. And as of publication, people have donated over $210,000.

On radio this morning, Glenn interviewed Memories Pizza owner Kevin O'Connor.

Below is a rush transcript of the full interview:

GLENN: We have a great show for you today. Mark Levin will be on with us in just a few minutes. Top of hour two. Kevin O'Connor is with us now. He is the owner of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Indiana. He was on Dana's show last night trying to explain himself, if he was on other networks. That's exactly what they would approach him with. I want to find out how he's doing and how his business is doing today. His daughter Crystal was quoted on local television saying if a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, I guess we would have to say no. We're not discriminating against anyone. That's just our belief and anyone has a right to believe in anything. I don't think it's targeting gays. I don't think it's discrimination. It's supposed to help people that have a religious belief. Let's go to Kevin now. Hello, Kevin, how are you?

KEVIN: Hi, Glenn. Fine, thank you.

GLENN: How are you holding up, and how is the family? How is your daughter?

KEVIN: We're holding up. Emotions are pretty raw. But we're starting to get so much support other than all the first explosion of negative stuff. So that's helping a lot. People have been really great.

PAT: Are you guys closed for today, or are you going to open the shop?

KEVIN: I think we're going to be closed today. We were closed yesterday. And I think we'll be closed today too.

PAT: And that's because of the -- of the backlash of hatred you got. Right?

And threats?

KEVIN: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Kevin --

KEVIN: The phone at the store, just it was constant ring. I don't think there was a two-minute break between -- that was probably the longest break of the whole time. It just was constantly ringing. So there was no way we could do business that way. So we're going to probably keep it closed a couple of days here, and Crystal is a little afraid. So I'll give her some time to get herself back together and work up the courage to go back in and get it rolling again.

GLENN: So, Kevin, you are -- you're a local pizza place.

KEVIN: Right.

GLENN: You've never had a problem with anybody before, I take it.

KEVIN: No. No.

GLENN: How and why did this local television station decide to target you?

KEVIN: The reporter that came in said they wanted to talk to the people out in small towns. And I asked, well, how did you pick us? And she said, well, I just Googled, and your pizza place came up first and that's -- so that's where I came. And that's where it all began.

GLENN: But I find that hard to believe because I know how slimy these reporters are. And this reporter might have been fine. But you do have religious paraphernalia you -- I assume that you have pictures or something, it just says that you're a restaurant that is festooned with Christian paraphernalia. So I don't know what kind of slam that is supposed to be. But I imagine --

KEVIN: We have a piano in there, an old upright piano. And Crystal had decorated that for Easter. And then we have a sign up there --

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

KEVIN: -- that we do prayers, and that's it.

PAT: Oh, no. Oh, my gosh. So that's festooned.

GLENN: That's festooned. Easter decorations up. Okay. So I find it hard to believe that you weren't targeted because you had something about prayer up in your pizza place.

KEVIN: Oh. I have no way of knowing that.

GLENN: You're a better man than I am. You are a better man than I am. Have you -- I mean, if a gay person comes into your establishment, you don't turn them away, do you?

KEVIN: No. No. We've never turned anyone away.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: So you don't ask anybody that comes in the door, excuse me, are you gay? Are you heterosexual? Are you atheist?

GLENN: Are you Muslim?

STU: You don't have certain toppings for each sexual preference?

KEVIN: No. We don't do any of that, no.

STU: But --

GLENN: So your daughter was just answering the question of, you being asked -- and I've never been to a wedding where a pizza place served. I find it amazing that she was going to -- just by random, just Googling, I'm looking for a small town pizza place, and she found you. Because when I think of someone catering a wedding, I immediately think of my local pizza shop.

STU: Have you ever catered a wedding, gay or straight?

KEVIN: No, we've never catered --

GLENN: Anything?

KEVIN: No. It was just a metaphor --

PAT: A hypothetical.

KEVIN: -- on Crystal's, part.

GLENN: So I want to make it clear. You've never catered anything, let alone a wedding.

KEVIN: Well, we have done for the school. They do a festival, and we run pizzas down to them.

PAT: Did you make sure there weren't any gays in the school before you catered to them? So stupid.

GLENN: Kevin --

PAT: This is so ridiculous.

GLENN: Kevin, can I ask you, because you must have thought of this in the last 24 hours, can you believe this is America? Can you believe this is the United States of America the way you're being treated?

KEVIN: No. And I thought of that before. I just -- it's hard to believe the way things have gone in such a short time.

GLENN: Can you tell us just so -- because we have people who listen to us on the left and they're not crazy, and I think what's happened is, they have turned a blind eye, all the normal friends who are Democrats and everything else, they've turned a blind eye to who is really running the show here. And they are -- they are really dangerous people. Just like if the right would just shut their mouth and turn a blind eye to dangerous fringe people on the right. What are the -- what are the kind of responses? I saw a teacher in Indiana, a high school teacher said, who will join me tonight to go to Memories Pizza to burn it down.

KEVIN: Yeah, I seen that. That's -- I don't -- I don't know what to say about it. I don't know what to think about it. It's just -- I can't believe the anger. The anger -- I don't think the anger is placed so much at us, but we became a place to vent.

GLENN: Are you getting death threats?

KEVIN: I haven't seen any. I've heard. But I haven't seen. And to be honest with you, I really got off the social internet here for the last day or two.

STU: That's a good idea. Although, there are some places that are nice on the internet right about now. Dana, on the Dana Show on this network, created a GoFundMe page for Memories Pizza that has $63,000 in it. You don't have to give us all the business details. But how many weeks of profit is $63,000 for a small pizza place?

KEVIN: Several.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Kevin, we feel for you. We want you to know that our families are praying for you.

KEVIN: That's more important than anything.

GLENN: Well, we feel for you. And my father ran a small bakery. And I know what shutting a small bakery down for two days would mean. And you may be closed longer than that. And I just want you to know that there are millions of people who are hearing you right now who will include you in their with the families at night.

KEVIN: Well, I covet those prayers. That's the strength. So --

GLENN: Listen to this guy. He's coveting. That's against a commandment. These Christians. Oh. Kevin, God bless you, sir, we wish you all the blessings that you and your family stand in need of.

KEVIN: Thank you.

GLENN: You're welcome. Thank you.

STU: The address is GoFundMe.com/MemoriesPizza.

PAT: What a nice guy. They just don't deserve it. You just can't make a comment at all anymore.

GLENN: We're not these people. We're not these people. And we can't be mad about it. If we respond in anger, we lose. We must listen to him. Listen to him. We have to respond in kindness, in gentleness, because when you put good versus evil side by side, if we're screaming and we're saying the same things that they're saying, kill them, burn them down, if we approach this with anger, we lose. We lose. We have to follow the teachings of our master. It's the only way to win.

[Music playing]

GLENN: Wow. Listen -- listen to the mocking.

PAT: No. What? That's reinforcement, my friend.

GLENN: I will let God be your judge on that one. Back in just 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.