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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn: Prepare for a time when voices like mine are no longer heard

May 07, 2015
Wilson

Writer

You’ve heard Glenn talk about the “Bubba Effect” before, but it’s more important than ever for you to know what is going on. The top down, bottom up, inside out strategy is building across America. Baltimore is just the latest example. On radio this morning, Glenn laid out a dire prediction of what’s in store if people don’t start to wake up and be leaders and shepherds in their own communities.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

It is time we stop being sheep. It is time for our pulpits to start teaching reconciliation. Here's a book I want you to go out and get today. I want you to get the Essential Speeches of Martin Luther King and start reading them. Please. I beg you.

There's so much of Martin Luther King that we don't understand. There's so much -- he is -- he's right. Read his speeches and you will understand reconciliation. And what we have to do. It is the only hope. It is what -- it is what Abraham Lincoln did at the end of the civil war. When they said they had Lee, what do you want me to do with him? He said, take your foot off his neck gently. Tell him to go home to their families. With malice toward none and charity toward all.

That's reconciliation. If you humiliate, if you demand a win, there's going to be a loser. And the loser will not forgive you. And it will just perpetuate into the next one. So we're looking for reconciliation here. What I'm afraid of is the Bubba Effect. And I've talked about this for about six years. I said, there's going to come a time when you'll start to have riots on the streets. There's going to come a time when you'll have terrorists come and do something. And the -- and the feds will come in or the government will come in, and they will try to quell it or they'll try to arrest somebody. And the town will say, uh-uh. Nope! You, United States government, you knew about it. You're part of the problem. And the Bubba Effect comes from the one idea that -- a Muslim goes and shoots somebody. And then Bubba, who just doesn't -- is not really paying attention. Sees a Sikh some place who wears a turban. Not a Muslim, but he's a Sikh. But Bubba sees him and is like, you people. And he's all enraged and he shoots a Sikh. Now, what's going to happen? The DOJ has to come in and try him for murder. But because that town just experienced some sort of, you know, 40 kids in an elementary school shot and they knew that the federal government kept the borders open and these guys came across the borders, they were here illegally, or they were from that mosque down the street that everybody knew was an extremist mosque, but they did nothing about it. That's when the citizens grab their guns and say to the DOJ, get the hell out of here. What Bubba did was wrong, but we'll take care of it. We don't need you here.

Now, this is not my theory. This is the theory that I learned from the Special Forces command about eight years ago. This is about 2004, and I go to the east coast. I go, where is that? Is that in Virginia? Where was that? Special Forces command? Fort Bragg. I'm at Fort Bragg and I'm talking to the press, and I said, what is your number one concern? And they said the Bubba Effect. They said, that's coming at some point in the future.

Now, that hadn't even occurred to me. This is before we're really having any kind of real hatred and animosity toward each another. It's the Michael Moore, you know, Fahrenheit 911 stuff. But we can handle all of that. It just happened. The beginning. Stage one just happened here in Dallas this weekend. And here it is. These marchers, they come in, Moms Against Police Brutality, and marchers for I don't know, free all the Mexicans. I don't know. Something about the border.

...

GLENN: Let them come in. Let them take jobs, whatever. So they're marching down the street. And these guys are connected. They're connected to the Nation of Islam. They're connected to Open Society. George Soros. They're connected to the Tides Foundation. This is a front group. This is front group. Pure and simple. The police are there. These groups are marching. But there's somebody in between. It's the open carry people.

So now here are just citizens with long arms. They have a right to have the long arms. When asked by a reporter friend, what are you guys doing here? Well, we're kind of the buffer between these guys and the police. What do you mean you're the buffer between these guys and the police? Well, we know how the police reacted, listen to this, we know how the police reacted in Baltimore, and we want to make sure that, A, if there was any police brutality, we could kind of buffer that zone. If they start to push the cops, that we could be in between them so that the cops couldn't really respond -- so no bad stuff is going to happen. And if somebody starts looting our city, we'll stop it. Because the police are going to be told like they were in Baltimore to stand down.

Bubba Effect. There it is. That's stage one. Nothing happened. So those guys went home. But now let me ask you something: If Bubba, who is carrying a long arm, they see somebody throwing mazel tov cocktails and they stop it, how many people in our community will say, no, no, no, wait a minute. You were told to stand down. These guys were burning our city down. They're just neighbors in our neighborhood that are trying to stop these guys from burning our neighborhood down? A lot.

We're being set up, guys. We are absolutely being set up. And I don't know -- this is what I pray every night. I don't know how to do this, Lord. I don't know what you want. I don't know -- I don't know what you want. I can't wake up any -- oh, if I had the voice of an angel. I can't wake anybody else up. They've smeared me. I've helped them smear me. I don't have any credibility. Nobody is listening. I can tell you what's coming. I've told you every step of the way. I know what's coming next.

But I don't know, how am I going to get people to listen? This is why, perhaps, I have said that you are going to be the key. Because I know that. I know that with everything in me. This audience changes the course in a good way. This audience pulls the republic back from the brink. And it's not going to be me. It's not going to be -- it's going to be you. But you need to know your role. And your role is as a peace -- blessed be the peacemakers.

You have to know what's really going on. Because nobody is going to tell you. Next week, we're going to show you, the stuff I found with Al Sharpton yesterday, I'm telling you, that's right. With Al Sharpton saying, we fought against states' rights in the '60s so we had the right to vote, and in this century, we have to fight states' rights, it's time for the Department of Justice to take over policing in America. That's what's happening. That's why they're sending all the MRAPs and everything else to these cities because the intent is that the government -- when the bottom rises up, the people will cry out for help. And the government will come top-down, and they'll control your policing. That's what's happening. And local police departments, police officers, please, please, learn this. Please.

Next week, we'll show you all the connections. We'll show you -- once you tie it all together in your head, you'll go, oh, my gosh, that's exactly what's happening. And only an understanding of this and then a peaceful informed public can stop it. Otherwise, we're going to be played. I mean, this is the biggest show ever. That's all that's happening right now. This is a show. We're watching a script and a play play out in front of us. None of this stuff is real.

Those riots in Baltimore. That wasn't real. How many times do we have to be told, most of the people are from out of town. All they need is one thing to get it started, that's real: The shooting. Then all the people come from out of town, and they manipulate it and they wind everybody up and they get it rolling. Then they leave town and they go to the next one. And they go to the next one. And they go to the next one. And before long, it will all be over. And nothing will truly be solved. Is Ferguson solved? Has there been reconciliation in Ferguson? The answer is no. And because no reconciliation, there is a wound on both sides. Same thing in Baltimore. Is anything going to be solved in Baltimore? No. It will just calm down a bit. But there will be wounds on both sides. At some point, there will be a straw that breaks the camel's back, and it will set the whole country on fire. And what happens? We will cry out for police help.

The police will be overwhelmed. The DOJ will say, we're going to take over policing. We'll coordinate it from here. And you're done. It's lights out, Republic.

That's what's coming. That's what's coming. And it's coming faster than you think. Perhaps longer than we think we have. But you have to be the one that can lead. Because if you look back at history, what happens to people who have voices and can cobble together people and be a leader, if you go back to what happened with the Armenian genocide, what is the first thing the Turks did? What is the first thing the Nazis do? You have a night of long knives. The Armenian genocide. Any of the Armenians that could lead, any mayor, any writer, any person that was a hero in war, in one day, in each city, they would kill about 1,000 people. They would just slaughter them. And they were all the leaders of the community. Anyone that people would rally around and follow. They were killed, day one.

They just disappear, or they're killed. Which means, they do that so that there is nothing left, but sheep and no shepherds. I'm telling you now, if you want the republic to survive, you must say you are not a sheep. You are a shepherd. There are 10 million people that listen to this show. They cannot kill 10 million people in one night. You were born for a reason, and you're listening to this show for a reason. Read the Essential Speeches of Martin Luther King. There is one way out. And it is through reconciliation, peace, love, the teachings of Jesus, the teachings of Gandhi, the teachings of Bonhoeffer, the teachings of Martin Luther King.

Prepare for a time when voices like mine or others are no longer heard. And yours is the only voice. Can't believe I just said all of that.

When 'Abolish America' stops being symbolic

Al Drago / Stringer | Getty Images

Prosecutors stopped a New Year’s Eve bombing plot rooted in ideology that treats the US as an enemy to be destroyed.

Federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced that four members of an anti-capitalist extremist group were arrested on Friday for plotting coordinated bombings in California on New Year’s Eve.

According to the Department of Justice, the suspects planned to detonate explosives concealed in backpacks at various businesses while also targeting ICE agents and vehicles. The attacks were supposed to coincide with midnight celebrations.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed.

The plot was disrupted before any lives were lost. The group behind the plot calls itself the Turtle Island Liberation Front. That name matters more than you might think.

When ideology turns operational

For years, the media has told us that radical, violent rhetoric on the left is mostly symbolic. They explained away the angry slogans, destructive language, and calls for “liberation” as performance or hyperbole.

Bombs are not metaphors, however.

Once explosives enter the picture, framing the issue as harmless expression becomes much more difficult. What makes this case different is the ideological ecosystem behind it.

The Turtle Island Liberation Front was not a single-issue group. It was anti-American, anti-capitalist, and explicitly revolutionary. Its members viewed the United States as an illegitimate occupying force rather than a sovereign nation. America, in their view, is not a nation, not a country; it is a structure that must be dismantled at any cost.

What ‘Turtle Island’ really means

“Turtle Island” is not an innocent cultural reference. In modern activist usage, it is shorthand for the claim that the United States has no moral or legal right to exist. It reframes the country as stolen land, permanently occupied by an illegitimate society.

Once people accept that premise, the use of violence against their perceived enemies becomes not only permissible, but virtuous. That framing is not unique to one movement. It appears again and again across radical networks that otherwise disagree on nearly everything.

Marxists, anarchists, and Islamist movements do not share the same vision for the future. They do not even trust one another. But they share a conviction that the United States, like Israel, is a colonial project that must be destroyed. The alignment of radical, hostile ideologies is anything but a coincidence.

The red-green alliance

For decades, analysts have warned about what is often called the red-green alliance: the convergence of far-left revolutionary politics with Islamist movements. The alliance is not based on shared values, but on shared enemies. Capitalism, national sovereignty, Western culture, and constitutional government all fall into that category.

History has shown us how this process works. Revolutionary coalitions form to tear down an existing order, promising liberation and justice. Once power is seized, the alliance fractures, and the most ruthless faction takes control.

Iran’s 1979 revolution followed this exact pattern. Leftist revolutionaries helped topple the shah. Within a few years, tens of thousands of them were imprisoned, executed, or “disappeared” by the Islamist regime they helped install. Those who do not understand history, the saying goes, are doomed to repeat it.

ALEX WROBLEWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This moment is different

What happened in California was not a foreign conflict bleeding into the United States or a solitary extremist acting on impulse. It was an organized domestic group, steeped in ideological narratives long validated by universities, activist networks, and the media.

The language that once circulated on campuses and social media is now appearing in criminal indictments. “Liberation” has become a justification for explosives. “Resistance” has become a plan with a date and a time. When groups openly call for the destruction of the United States and then prepare bombs to make it happen, the country has entered a new phase. Pretending things have not gotten worse, that we have not crossed a line as a country, is reckless denial.

Every movement like this depends on confusion. Its supporters insist that calls for America’s destruction are symbolic, even as they stockpile weapons. They denounce violence while preparing for it. They cloak criminal intent in the language of justice and morality. That ambiguity is not accidental. It is deliberate.

The California plot should end the debate over whether these red-green alliances exist. They do. The only question left is whether the country will recognize the pattern before more plots advance farther — and succeed.

This is not about one group, one ideology, or one arrest. It is about a growing coalition that has moved past rhetoric and into action. History leaves no doubt where that path leads. The only uncertainty is whether Americans will step in and stop it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.