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

Ted Cruz: American people want to protect traditional marriage

July 06, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Progressives claim that the American people fully support gay marriage, but is there something else at play? Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz believes the evidence shows that people vote at the ballot box to preserve marriage as a union between a man and a woman. During an interview with Glenn, Sen. Cruz explained why he believes marriage is a question left to the states, not the federal government.

Below is a transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Sure. Let’s start here because you have an interesting view of the Supreme Court. I’m so tempted to ask you if you think John Roberts has ever been blackmailed by somebody in the NSA because I don’t understand his rulings lately, but I won’t go down that road. What I would like to know is as a guy who has argued in front of the Supreme Court, has worked in the Supreme Court, we are off the Constitution, making it up as they go along now, right?

Sen. Cruz: That is absolutely right.

Glenn: The ruling on ObamaCare, I can’t even fathom. They used to say—correct me if I’m wrong, not an attorney—didn’t they used to say you got that wrong, send it back, do it right, and then bring it to us, right?

Sen. Cruz: That is exactly right. When the rulings came out last week, I commented publicly that these are some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.

Glenn: I agree.

Sen. Cruz: The entire liberal media went apoplectic with that comment. They said darkest, what about 9/11? What about Pearl Harbor?

Glenn: This is the end of the Constitution.

Sen. Cruz: Within 24 hours, on Thursday, six justices ignored federal law, rewrote ObamaCare, literally took out an eraser, erased key portions of the bill in order to force that failed law on millions of Americans, and then on Friday, five justices ignored the Constitution and declared the authority to rewrite marriage, to strike down the marriage laws in all 50 states.

Glenn: So help me out on this because I think there’s a lot of people, especially the millennials, that they’re like cool with look, it’s about love, it’s about love. I’ve tried to explain my daughter, and she gets it now that she’s been watching, but she came to me, and she’s like dad, it’s about love. I said if it was about love, I’d be totally cool, I’d be totally cool. God tells me no, but that’s not my job to judge them. I can’t change their behavior, so I’d be totally cool. It’s about changing and dismantling almost everything in our society. She now sees what is happening along the way. Explain to people that might be thinking who are you, Ted Cruz, to judge me?

Sen. Cruz: Well look, you are right, this is hand-in-hand with a concerted assault on religious liberty and a concerted assault on the Judeo-Christian values this country was built on.

Glenn: I’ve heard them, they tell you it’s absolutely not.

Sen. Cruz: Well, they will say that, but the facts speak otherwise. Let’s begin with one of the premises that they repeat over and over again. They say the American people want this, and they point to poll after poll that show percentages of Americans who want this. They point to millennials, and say millennials want this. You know, it’s very easy to design a poll to get the result you want, and there are a lot of advocates here. We are seeing a propaganda effort from the mainstream media and from Hollywood.

I can give you two facts that are counter to the notion that the American people want this. Number one, 40 states, 4-0, have passed either laws or constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage. When it goes to the ballot box, the people vote very differently from what the Hollywood advocates claim the American people want. A few years ago, the state of California, not a conservative state, bright blue, liberal California voted on marriage, and a majority of Californians voted for protecting traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

You know who voted overwhelmingly for that? Hispanics and African-Americans, so this notion that gets repeated every day on the mainstream media is baloney. This is they’re attempting—if it were true that the American people wanted this, there would be no need for a court case because they could win at the ballot box. They’re doing this because they haven’t been winning at the ballot box.

Glenn: It’s not about that. Your opposition to this is not about gay marriage. One of your big funders as a senator, if you don’t mind me saying, is Peter Thiel. He’s a libertarian, gay guy.

Sen. Cruz: Yes.

Glenn: You’re friends. You went to college together.

Sen. Cruz: My touchstone has always been the Constitution. Under the Constitution, marriage has been a question for the states.

Glenn: Is marriage a human right itself? Traditional marriage, is that in the Constitution? Is that a protected right?

Sen. Cruz: The human rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but when it comes to how marriage is designed—you know, when I talk with proponents of gay marriage, I say listen, you and I can disagree perhaps as a policy matter whether gay marriage is a good idea. I say to folks who advocate gay marriage, we can disagree on that, and reasonable minds can differ. I strongly support traditional marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but we can have a reasonable debate about that. Under the Constitution, there is an avenue to seek to change the marriage laws in your state, which is to convince your fellow citizens we should change the laws. Now, you’ve got to win the argument.

Glenn: But you know that that would break down across state lines. I move, and then I’m not going to recognize, etc., etc.

Sen. Cruz: But Glenn, it hasn’t. We’ve had right now unelected judges have torn down the marriage laws in some states, so right now today the law is that there are gay marriages in some states. In other states, like the state of Texas, there are not. It has worked perfectly fine. I’ll tell an interesting story. So, a little over a year ago, I was on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, utterly surreal, by the way, to be on The Tonight Show. You’re like what on earth am I doing here?

First question Jay asked, it’s Hollywood, he says okay, you’re a Republican. Gay marriage, why do you hate gay people? My response, I said listen, Jay, I believe in traditional marriage, but I’m a constitutionalist. The Constitution leaves this as questions for the states. If the people of California decide to adopt one definition of marriage, they have the prerogative to debate that and do that, but if the people of other states, like my home state of Texas, decide to protect traditional marriage under the Constitution, that’s their prerogative. You know the interesting thing, Glenn, the studio audience in Burbank, California, burst into applause. Jay did a double take. Wait, you’re a conservative Republican. You’re not supposed to get applause from a California audience.

Glenn: So, here’s the thing, my solution to this has been it’s not a federal thing at all because of the Tenth Amendment. It’s not. You say give it to the states. But why is it even in the states? Why do we even have to have that? Isn’t it a contract between me, my spouse, and who’s marrying me? Why not just end it entirely? Because it seems to me what they’ve done is now made this a civil right, constitutional civil right, which now puts all of our churches and all of our schools and everybody else in line for massive litigation.

Sen. Cruz: Well listen, the problem with that is that the government and the courts have always played a role. Whenever you have marriages, you’re going to have divorces. When you have divorces, you’re going to have to dispose of property. Even more importantly, you have children, you’ve got parental visitation, you’ve got custody. Those are questions that under our legal system are going to have to be decided, and the government can’t totally wash its hands of that. If you look at the origins of marriage, marriage long preceded the United States of America. It wasn’t the Constitution that invented marriage or the Declaration or the Supreme Court. For millennia, marriage has been the union of one man and one woman.

Glenn: Church.

Sen. Cruz: It was ordained by God. It was designed, I believe, to reflect the relationship of Christ and the church, and it was designed for the raising of children. So, there is an inherent role when it comes to kids and if a marriage breaks up what to do with the kids that the state can’t wash its hands of. I will say this, the next major battlefield will be religious liberty, and it’s already Christians are being persecuted. People of faith are being persecuted for following biblical teachings.

Glenn: So then let me go there because I think there is a massive wake-up coming. Let me ask you this as a question. If the Christians and people of faith, the Jews, everybody who practices real religion, are we done if they don’t wake up and stand up now?

Sen. Cruz: If people of faith do not stand up in this next election, I fear the greatest nation in the history of the world will be lost.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

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.

Exposed: The radical Left's bloody rampage against America

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

For years, the media warned of right-wing terror. But the bullets, bombs, and body bags are piling up on the left — with support from Democrat leaders and voters.

For decades, the media and federal agencies have warned Americans that the greatest threat to our homeland is the political right — gun-owning veterans, conservative Christians, anyone who ever voted for President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden once declared that white supremacy is “the single most dangerous terrorist threat” in the nation.

Since Trump’s re-election, the rhetoric has only escalated. Outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian warned that his second term would trigger a wave of far-right violence.

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing.

They were wrong.

The real domestic threat isn’t coming from MAGA grandmas or rifle-toting red-staters. It’s coming from the radical left — the anarchists, the Marxists, the pro-Palestinian militants, and the anti-American agitators who have declared war on law enforcement, elected officials, and civil society.

Willful blindness

On July 4, a group of black-clad terrorists ambushed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Alvarado, Texas. They hurled fireworks at the building, spray-painted graffiti, and then opened fire on responding law enforcement, shooting a local officer in the neck. Journalist Andy Ngo has linked the attackers to an Antifa cell in the Dallas area.

Authorities have so far charged 14 people in the plot and recovered AR-style rifles, body armor, Kevlar vests, helmets, tactical gloves, and radios. According to the Department of Justice, this was a “planned ambush with intent to kill.”

And it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of a growing pattern of continuous violent left-wing incidents since December last year.

Monthly attacks

Most notably, in December 2024, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione allegedly gunned down UnitedHealth Group CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Mangione reportedly left a manifesto raging against the American health care system and was glorified by some on social media as a kind of modern Robin Hood.

One Emerson College poll found that 41% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 said the murder was “acceptable” or “somewhat acceptable.”

The next month, a man carrying Molotov cocktails was arrested near the U.S. Capitol. He allegedly planned to assassinate Trump-appointed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

In February, the “Tesla Takedown” attacks on Tesla vehicles and dealerships started picking up traction.

In March, a self-described “queer scientist” was arrested after allegedly firebombing the Republican Party headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Graffiti on the burned building read “ICE = KKK.”

In April, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro’s (D-Pa.) official residence was firebombed on Passover night. The suspect allegedly set the governor’s mansion on fire because of what Shapiro, who is Jewish, “wants to do to the Palestinian people.”

In May, two young Israeli embassy staffers were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. Witnesses said the shooter shouted “Free Palestine” as he was being arrested. The suspect told police he acted “for Gaza” and was reportedly linked to the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In June, an Egyptian national who had entered the U.S. illegally allegedly threw a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado. Eight people were hospitalized, and an 82-year-old Holocaust survivor later died from her injuries.

That same month, a pro-Palestinian rioter in New York was arrested for allegedly setting fire to 11 police vehicles. In Los Angeles, anti-ICE rioters smashed cars, set fires, and hurled rocks at law enforcement. House Democrats refused to condemn the violence.

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

In Portland, Oregon, rioters tried to burn down another ICE facility and assaulted police officers before being dispersed with tear gas. Graffiti left behind read: “Kill your masters.”

On July 7, a Michigan man opened fire on a Customs and Border Protection facility in McAllen, Texas, wounding two police officers and an agent. Border agents returned fire, killing the suspect.

Days later in California, ICE officers conducting a raid on an illegal cannabis farm in Ventura County were attacked by left-wing activists. One protester appeared to fire at federal agents.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It’s a timeline of escalation. Political assassinations, firebombings, arson, ambushes — all carried out in the name of radical leftist ideology.

Democrats are radicalizing

This isn’t just the work of fringe agitators. It’s being enabled — and in many cases encouraged — by elected Democrats.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz routinely calls ICE “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass attempted to block an ICE operation in her city. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu compared ICE agents to a neo-Nazi group. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson referred to them as “secret police terrorizing our communities.”

Apparently, other Democratic lawmakers, according to Axios, are privately troubled by their own base. One unnamed House Democrat admitted that supporters were urging members to escalate further: “Some of them have suggested what we really need to do is be willing to get shot.” Others were demanding blood in the streets to get the media’s attention.

A study from Rutgers University and the National Contagion Research Institute found that 55% of Americans who identify as “left of center” believe that murdering Donald Trump would be at least “somewhat justified.”

As Democrats bleed working-class voters and lose control of their base, they’re not moderating. They’re radicalizing. They don’t want the chaos to stop. They want to harness it, normalize it, and weaponize it.

The truth is, this isn’t just about ICE. It’s not even about Trump. It’s about whether a republic can survive when one major party decides that our institutions no longer apply.

Truth still matters. Law and order still matter. And if the left refuses to defend them, then we must be the ones who do.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.