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

Meet the church leader hosting Glenn for the fifth anniversary of 8/28

June 08, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Glenn announced this morning that on 8/28/2015, the fifth anniversary of “Restoring Honor,” he would be speaking at Guiding Light Church in Birmingham, Alabama. The “Restoring Honor” event was a pivotal moment for Glenn and everyone in attendance. It was on that day that Glenn called for people to turn back to God and unite as one. Now, it’s time to take the next step. Bishop James Lowe of Guiding Light Church joined Glenn on radio to discuss the movement and the role churches will play in the days to come.

GLENN: I have to tell you, we were just talking off the air. I have something -- that because of this illness that I have, it causes vocal cord paralysis from time to time. And I swear to you, I mean, Lord, what are you doing? You want me to say these things, and then this happens.

PAT: Well, now you said them. And so now he's like shut your mouth.

GLENN: Shut your mouth, Beck. All right. Whatever. If I got it wrong, shut it down. I don't want to do it anyway. Just shut it down. Bishop James Lowe is with us.

This is a preacher, a pastor from Birmingham, Alabama. Who is a very brave man. Now, I've only had two conversations with him. One was probably three or four minutes. Last week, we talked, I don't know, 20, 30 minutes. And this guy -- this guy is peel-the-skin-off-your-face brave and speaks the truth. If you don't like it, go find someplace else. Because he'll tell you the truth as he sees it.

Welcome to the program, Bishop Lowe.

JAMES: Good morning, and God bless you.

GLENN: God bless you. How are you, sir?

JAMES: I'm doing well today. I'm listening to your program, and I'm ready. Let's go forward to what we have to do for our people, our country, and our nation.

GLENN: Now, let me ask you something, Bishop, how much trouble personally do you see coming your way just for us getting together?

JAMES: You know, I don't know. But I do know this, that in this life, the Lord never promised us that we would have a peaceful life. He told us we would have trouble. And if I'm going to have trouble, then it has to be trouble for my Lord, something that I do for him that glorifies his name to bring his people together so that they understand that he is God of all gods. And if my master suffered persecution and trouble, then what options do I have? No servant is greater than his master.

GLENN: So we talked a little about things last week. And, you know, we both see the direction of the country. And we see the problems on the horizon. We see the problems in Ferguson and St. Louis. We see the problems with what's going to happen to our churches. I believe if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage and it becomes then federal law, what happens to churches that is, I don't want to marry homosexuals? Do they have a right to do that anymore? And I see trouble on the horizon. Real trouble on the horizon.

And we talked about how can we bring people together? How do you do that in a peaceful way while still standing for the truth?

JAMES: Well, I think if we recognize the truth and the only truth as God's word, then when we join together, we stand on God's word. We cannot talk about violence when our Lord has not told us that we're to be violent. We have to be able to come together and discuss with one another in peace. That's what Jesus was able to do. He didn't become violent. We do know he did overturn the moneychangers. But he didn't destroy anything. We have to have a fundamental foundation and a backbone to stand up for the foundation of -- of the teachings of Christ. If we don't do that, know we will fall apart. Even churches have that problem. But we must come together and stand for what is correct.

Listen, the homosexuals and what they do, they are people too. They have a right to life, as all human beings do. But there are authorities that we all must submit to. And those authorities are the authorities of the Word of God. We cannot change and redefine the definition of what marriage is. That's beyond man to do that. Marriage was defined by God, and marriage can only be redefined by God, the Creator. And he has not redefined it. The last I checked, it was between a man and a woman.

GLENN: What happens if -- and, you know, we're kind of getting into nuts and bolts here about this one topic.

JAMES: We can go anywhere you want to.

GLENN: No, no, no. I would like to say this. What happens if the Supreme Court says to you and your church, you have to perform gay marriages? What do you do?

JAMES: I stand by my convictions and the Word of God. I told my church in the late '90s that if they voted for a political party that was going to support things that were against God, I could no longer support that party. And if they were going to honor God, they would have to support what God said. And if the time came that my government said that I would have to violate my God, it would be better for me to obey my God than my government.

GLENN: How many people did you lose?

JAMES: I quite got quite a few folk that left. And when I told folks at the same time that you don't need to be defined by what White America has defined you as -- I refuse to be defined as a black person. I refuse to be defined by any person. The only person that has a right to define who I am is the Almighty God. And the ability to define is the ability to control. We have to understand that if I allow -- and don't be offended. But let me just say this. If I allow you people to define who I am, then you control me. And I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. I simply mean that no man has a right to define any other man. Because the ability to define is the ability to control. And only God has a right to define. Only the Creator of a thing has a right to define it. And so I don't want to be referred to as Afro-American. I don't want to be referred to as Black America. I just want to be defined as a child of God. And that's what I am. And if I define myself or people define themselves as children of God, then we understand that we are part of the brotherhood of man. And that God has put us together as one. Every life is valuable. Every life of every man is valuable. But when we start redefining ourselves, then we start dividing ourselves.

GLENN: Why are the churches silent on what's happening with the Christians and the Muslims who aren't Muslim enough and the homosexuals that, you know, won't stop being a homosexual so they're thrown off the roofs of buildings by ISIS, why are our churches so dead inside?

JAMES: I would probably have to say that those churches that do not speak out about those things and injustices being done in any part of the world are churches that are not connected with the spirit of the living God. Jesus was concerned about the poor. He was concerned about the ones that were being mistreated. He was concerned about the hungry. He was concerned about all mankind. God himself was so in love with the world that he gave his only son. We have to be concerned about the plight of the people in India, in Israel, in Arabia, Saudi Arabia, we have to be concerned about the people in Mississippi. Whenever any man suffers an injustice, all men do. We must in churches be connected to the spirit of the living God. And when we're connected to the spirit of the living God, then we have the power to bring about change because we submit to the one who is the life changer.

GLENN: Bishop Lowe, we want to thank you for making your church available to have us speak there in Birmingham, Alabama. And I look forward to shaking your hand and seeing you there on 8/28.

JAMES: Well, I hope I'm not alarming too much of your audience. But I think that it needs to be heard.

GLENN: I don't think you're alarming this audience.

JAMES: No, Glenn, people need to know that as a nation of America, we must stop dividing ourselves between race. We must see ourselves as a nation that was founded on principles that all men were created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have to stop separating ourselves. Because if we divide, we fall. If we unite, we stand.

GLENN: Well, we're there united on 8/28. And I thank you very much for your invitation. And I thank all --

JAMES: Are you ready for it, Glenn? Can you handle it?

GLENN: What you throwing down? Yes, I can, bishop. And we will see you then. God bless you.

JAMES: Bring it.

GLENN: God bless. Bishop James Lowe from the Guiding Light Church in Birmingham, Alabama, where we will be on 8/28.

[laughter]

PAT: That was a nice little challenge there at the end.

GLENN: I thought he was going to say, what's up, my cracker?

STU: I doubt that was the approach.

GLENN: You don't think --

PAT: No. I didn't think there was any danger of that at any point.

STU: No. Or anyone else in America saying it outside of you, who says it every day for no particular reason.

GLENN: What's up, my cracker?

PAT: Yeah. No.

GLENN: Maybe that's why the vocal cords are gone. Maybe God was like, okay, you said that. But I know you're going to say, what's up, my cracker, and I got to get you to stop saying it.

STU: Yes, we'd like you to abandon the catchphrase.

PAT: It's a sign.

GLENN: It's a sign?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Huh. Okay.

We would invite you to join us at mercuryone.org and look at the things that we are -- we have set out on today's program. Never again is now. And there are certain things that you can do to get involved. We will be telling you more about them here in the next few days. But it is time that we come together and we stand together for life. All life matters.

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.

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.