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

How bad is Obama’s foreign policy? Let’s count the ways

July 14, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Last night on Glenn’s program featured a segment titled ‘Enabling the Enemy’ that breaks down Obama’s horrific foreign policy mistakes. In many instances these mistakes are the exact same ones the Bush administration made. Obama promised a new era of foreign policy -- but has anything changed? Blaze head writer Dan Andros and head researcher Jason Buttrill break it down.

Dan: Hi, this is Dan Andros, head writer for The Glenn Beck Program, along with Jason Buttrill, who is former military intelligence and the chief researcher here at TheBlaze. Over the next couple days, we’re going to be going through explaining something that is really important. It’s just how badly America’s foreign policy has failed. Not surprisingly, the press hasn’t paid much attention to the details of this administration’s foreign policy and the results.

What we want to look at is the last twelve years here, because six of them have been under Bush, and now we’ve had six under Obama’s administration, and how much has changed really, because he promised a big change. Really not much has changed at all. In fact, I think it’s gotten worse. I think the argument we’re going to make here over the next couple days is that the administration is actually enabling the enemy instead of degrading and destroying them as they had promised.

That is quite a claim, and so we’re going to try to unpack that over here in the next few episodes of this. We’re going to start here, with the beginning of the Iraq war. This is obviously under Bush in 2003. Ever since then, there’s been a disturbing trend where Christians are fleeing Iraq in record numbers. Explain the history there, what’s happening, and why it matters.

Jason: Since after the Iraq war, since after the invasion, around 2003, there was around 1.5 million Christians in Iraq. Think about that. These are Christians that have survived multiple genocides, so there was around 1.5 million Christians there. These were Christians that have been there since the time of the apostles. When the apostles converted the Assyrians, the Assyrians were one of the most ancient peoples in the lands. After 2003, these Christians slowly started disappearing. From 1.5 million Christians, today there are 200,000 Christians left.

It’s insane, 1.3 million Christians have been wiped off the face of the earth, and it’s not just the people that are getting slaughtered, it’s national heritage sites. It’s the places that you’ve learned about in Sunday school, the tombs of Jonah, the tombs of Daniel. Those places have been destroyed. So, they’re not only trying to get rid of Christians, they’re trying to erase our history. They’re trying to not only make sure that we don’t go forward in the region, they’re trying to make sure that we never existed at all.

Dan: Okay, so the crazy thing is that ISIS which was founded in Iraq as Al Qaeda in Iraq, they just invaded Iraq from Syria as an outside invading force, which is well, how did that happen? You say the answer to how that came about is kind of crucial to explaining all of the foreign policy mistakes that we’re making right now. Can you explain that a little bit more?

Jason: Al Qaeda had always been an organization that was extremely brutal. We’ve seen that. We’ve see the multiple videos they did, but we never saw them go to what you see ISIS doing right now. You say why is that? Well, it’s not only us that are realizing that. Even Al Qaeda’s own imams are noticing that too. Imam Maqdisi, who is one of their most influential imams, he came out and called ISIS a deviant. Why is that?

ISIS created a political and geographic framework for the caliphate. They provided what Al Qaeda wanted to create, so why would Maqdisi come out and say that they’re a deviant? In 2003, this was one of our first mistakes after the Iraq war, which was probably the actual first mistake. What we’ll track now is in 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, he disbanded the Iraqi military. What he should have done was he should have kept the Iraqi military in place.

Now, these are guys that were trained in the West, some of them. They went to Western schools. They were professionals. They were generals, they were officers in Saddam’s army. Not all of them were bad. Some of them were Christians even. Not all of them were bad guys. What they should’ve done is kept that infrastructure in place and handed them over to the new Iraqi government. They didn’t do that.

So, what were they doing? They were pissed. They didn’t have nothing to do, so what they did was they went to some of these jihadi organizations that were fighting American troops.

Dan: Because now you’ve got a whole legion of people who are not only pissed, don’t have a job anymore, they’ve got to get something to eat, they’re also loyal to Saddam, and they have no reason not to be loyal to Saddam now.

Jason: Exactly.

Dan: And more of an ax to grind.

Jason: Exactly. So, this landed a lot of them in prison camps, more specifically what you’ve probably heard about, Camp Bucca. Camp Bucca housed some of all of ISIS’s current members. Many of their high-ranking membership came from Camp Bucca. There were three specific guys. They met up with the young man named al-Baghdadi, who you know now is the current caliph.

Now, these three guys, these are older gentlemen. They were generals in Saddam’s intelligence apparatus. These were very intense, serious dudes, and if you think about nowadays, you see the brutality of ISIS, and it shocks us. People are forgetting that this was something that we had just saw about ten years ago from the Saddam regime. Their actions are the reason why the majority of us, of Americans, gave our consent and said yes, go in and stop them.

Dan: Right, because he gassed his own people.

Jason: Gases his own people. He would beat people to a pulp and have dogs finish it off and chew them up and kill them. Decapitations, it was crazy.

Dan: On par with how awful ISIS is.

Jason: Exactly, and that’s what we’re getting too. So, these three intelligence guys, they meet up with Baghdadi. They get out of prison. Baghdadi actually gets out first. He’s a nobody. Baghdadi is a nobody. He had no jihadi links whatsoever. He was known to be hanging out with some jihadi folks. That’s what got him arrested. He stayed in for a matter of months.

Dan: Right. That’s how he got out because they didn’t have any hard evidence that this guy was active on the battlefield.

Jason: Exactly. They couldn’t hold him, so he gets out. He gets out, he goes straight to Zarqawi, which is the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. He goes and hangs out with him. Pretty soon these three intelligence guys, they get out, and they go link up with Zarqawi and Baghdadi.

Dan: Zarqawi was like enemy number one at the time. I remember when they had the picture cards out. They had the ace of spades and everything else. He was one of the top guys on there besides bin Laden at the time.

Jason: He was one of the top guys. He met bin Laden. That’s how you actually became a leader in a certain providence for Al Qaeda. You had to be vetted by the man. Osama bin Laden had to sign off on you. That’s the only way you could get into Al Qaeda. He signed off on Zarqawi. Zarqawi was legit.

Zarqawi dies in the US bombing raid. Somehow Baghdadi slips into his spot. He had never met Osama bin Laden. This was before Osama bin Laden was killed. This was around 2010-ish. He had never met him. He had no fighting experience.

Dan: He didn’t have the cred, but somehow he gets boosted up there. How does that happen?

Jason: A man that had nothing but two things, he had a PhD in Islamic studies, and he came from the correct tribe that Muhammad was descended from, the Quraysh tribe. At some point along this time, they split from Al Qaeda. They make a split. Baghdadi makes a huge public statement that he is no longer in support of Al Qaeda. A guy with no jihadi street cred whatsoever, he’s now in control of one of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terror groups. How did that happen?

Dan: He would never have been approved for that by bin Laden.

Jason: Never would have been approved for that, and he had no approval for it because they eventually split, and now Al Qaeda is calling them a deviant. Why is that?

Dan: So, it kind of begs the question, who was recruiting who in that prison? Because the answer to it, if it goes the way we think it does, would lead us to believe that we’re actually still fighting Saddam Hussein’s loyalists and Saddam Hussein in Iraq in this battle against ISIS. It’s not just a rogue force that came out of nowhere. It’s born out of our own foreign policy mistakes, and it’s just the first in a whole series of them. We’ll pick up with more of those next time.

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.