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

Rep. Thomas Massie tells Glenn who he can and can't trust

October 22, 2015
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie came onto Glenn's radio program Thursday to share his disgust with Glenn on the recent endorsement of Paul Ryan for Speaker of the House.

"I'm disappointed that my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus expressed support for Paul Ryan instead of Daniel Webster," Massie said before pointing out he is not a member of the Freedom Caucus himself.

Glenn said, "Good, so you have nothing to lose. Give me the names of the members of the Freedom Caucus that you were surprised who just buckled."

Instead of naming names, Massie said, "I don't even want you to trust me. What I want you to do is look at who voted against John Boehner on January 6th. Compare that to the list of people today making noise."

He went on.

"There were only five of us actually who supported the motion to vacate the Speaker. And then, this is most important, Glenn, on October 29th, there will be a vote in front of C-SPAN and God and country, where every member of Congress has to stand up and say who they're voting for, for Speaker. Pay attention," Massie said. "That day they have to choose between you or the establishment."

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: I said on Facebook last night, I'm going to hold off as long as I can because I'm too angry and it's not going to get any better. So let me just see Freedom Caucus. You asked us to kick out the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. You then asked us to do our homework on Daniel Webster. That's the guy you need. Which we did. We did. You actually said to me -- members of the Freedom Caucus actually said to me, "Glenn, you've got to go on the air and ask for this tool. We need this tool." And I said, "I'll give you any tool that you need, me personally. But I don't know how I convince people -- he's -- he's not the guy."

"No, no, no, you don't know. It's the system that matters; otherwise, if we get in -- and this is a damn quote. "If we get in another John Boehner, the party will be lost, we will probably lose the presidency." You remember that, Pat?

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: This was in a private meeting. So I spent a week talking to members of the Freedom Caucus, the Liberty Caucus, the Tea Party Caucus, calling all these guys up and saying, "Really? Because I got one shot at this. You want me to put my name on Daniel Webster and me to tell the audience -- A, you better be damn sure that he's right. Because I got one shot at it. I betray my audience and put somebody up there and ask them to back him and he turns out to be the wrong guy, then my credibility is shot." And I've never done this before. I've never ever had the guys from the Freedom Caucus, Liberty Caucus, Tea Party Caucus -- they have never ever come to me and said, "Hey, we really want this." And then I've never ever said, "Yes, I'll help you do that." Never. But because this is so important and they made such a big deal out of it: "We'll lose not only the election, we could lose the country. We could lose everything. The whole thing rides on who the Speaker of the House is." That's what I was told by many members. And then they come and they say, "Oh, we're for Paul Ryan." I will give you at the top of the hour, my list of why Paul Ryan is not the guy.

But I personally feel betrayed by the Freedom Caucus. I personally feel betrayed by many members of Congress who asked for your help and asked me to carry water for them. And I got news for you, every single last one of you bums in Congress, I'm done with you. Never again will I help you. Never again.

Now, I want to hear -- I want to hear exactly what you were thinking. Of course, they won't come on. We have Thomas Massie who is waiting. Thomas Massie -- please dear God, Thomas, tell me that you didn't vote for this guy, right?

THOMAS: I did not vote for this guy. I'm not going to vote for this guy. Look, if Paul Ryan would promote the right ideas and a fair process, I could support him, but he doesn't have a history of doing that. Daniel Webster does. I'm supporting Daniel Webster. I'm disappointed that my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus expressed support for Paul Ryan instead of Daniel Webster. I am not a member of the Freedom Caucus.

GLENN: Good. So you have nothing to lose. Give me the names of the members of the Freedom Caucus that you were surprised who just buckled.

(laughter)

THOMAS: You know what, the people here in Washington, DC, are experts at telling you what you want to hear.

GLENN: I know. So tell me the things that you don't want to say. Give me the names of the people so the American people know exactly who these guys are.

THOMAS: You can't trust Sam -- I don't even want you to trust me. What I want you to do is look at who voted against John Boehner on January 6th. Compare that to the list of people today making noise. Look at the five men who were on the motion to vacate. They were only five of us actually who supported the motion to vacate the Speaker. And then, this is most important, Glenn, on October 29th, there will be a vote in front of C-SPAN and God and country, where every member of Congress has to stand up and say who they're voting for, for Speaker. Pay attention. Your listeners need to pay attention because there are people saying that they are something they are not. But that day they have to choose between you or the establishment.

GLENN: I will tell you, Thomas. I don't know how you do it. I don't know how you do it. Last night, I couldn't -- I couldn't -- I couldn't even sleep last night. I was so angry with these guys. I feel -- and, you know what, if you read my Facebook page, you read Pat's Facebook page --

THOMAS: I read it.

GLENN: You see, everybody is saying the same thing. I'm betrayed. I am absolutely betrayed.

PAT: They're pissed. I'm done. I won't make another phone call. All of that kind of stuff.

GLENN: All these guys -- and, you know what, Thomas, I'm sorry, but you're going to be swept up into it. You guys who didn't do it, you've got to stand up. I will make room for you guys, the good guys, on the show. Anyone who stands up. I need a list of the people who did it, and the list of the people who didn't do it. Because if you're not known, you're going to be swept up into it as well.

THOMAS: Here's what I recommend, Glenn, there are five men that put their names and careers on the line to sponsor the motion to vacate.

GLENN: Give me the five names.

THOMAS: Louie Gohmert. Myself, Thomas Massie. Ted Yoho. Mark Meadows, of course, was the primary sponsor. And Walter Jones. Now, we were the five who moved to vacate the chair before this was popular. We were the ones that put our careers on the line.

My wife actually asked me if I felt like I was in physical danger when I did that.

PAT: Wow.

THOMAS: Those are the five you can trust. Everybody else has got to speak for their vote on October 29th when they either vote to maintain the status quo or they vote for something different.

PAT: Thomas, it must be even worse in Washington than I believe it to be when you -- your vote places you in peril or at least your wife is concerned that that might be the case. That's pretty amazing.

THOMAS: These are big numbers, and these are powerful people up here. There's a lot of money at stake. There's a lot riding on this. And I don't want to go into conspiracy theories. I am not worried. I'm not physically worried. I think I'll be fine. If they wanted to ruin me, they would probably put something on my hard drive or set me up in some way and try to ruin me politically. I don't think there's any kind of physical danger here myself.

PAT: Yeah.

THOMAS: But keep this in mind, my colleagues that I work with, they are soft mammals with chemical reactions going on in their brains and they're walking around with voting cards, and you can't trust any of them.

(laughter)

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: Okay. So, Thomas, I'm going to ask people to call Congress today and tell them, "We're done." Will that make any difference at all?

THOMAS: It's like they're trying to put -- the establishment has found another cork to put on the bottle, and that's just going to build more pressure. We'll have more Donald Trumps empowered out there. I mean, he's a function -- he is the result of Congress' inaction, dysfunction, and unwillingness to listen.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

THOMAS: People are so fed up, they're willing to back this guy. And it scares the heck out of me. I'm here in the middle of this, and I am trying to battle to do the right thing. I can't tell you how frustrated I am, Glenn. I am -- I am at least as frustrated as you are. I have to look these folks in the eye today and say --

GLENN: You know what, Thomas, you did what you said you would do.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I know I said it to you. I said it to everybody I spoke to. Everybody who was saying, "No, we really need -- we really need -- those lying sons of bitches looked me in the eye and said to me, "Not really -- because do you remember me saying, "Look, I'll help you in any way I can. I can only do so much. I'll carry that water. Are you sure? Because I got one shot at this. I won't have any credibility left if you guys -- if this isn't the guy or if it -- do you remember me saying that to you?

THOMAS: I remember very precisely. And that's exactly what you said, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. So I feel really deeply betrayed by anyone who came to me and then -- and now they're like, "Well, you know, Paul Ryan, we can't really win." How dare you do that! How dare you do that! Thank you, Thomas, for at least being -- because I -- you know, I talked to you yesterday and you're like, "No, there's no way I'm going to vote for -- and I thought last night, I'm like, "Please, dear God, don't let Thomas be one of the guys who has done this." I'm so happy to hear that you stood your ground.

THOMAS: You can trust me. Look at the track record. This is what I encourage people. Don't -- people want to associate themselves with the caucus. I never did associate with the Freedom Caucus. Never been to a meeting. I'm not throwing them under the bus. What I am saying is, there are 40 individuals, and you need to look at each of those individuals. And what did they do on January 6th, when we stood firm and voted for a new Speaker? How many of them cosponsored the motion to vacate the chair? Not many. And look at what they do on October 29th. That's the most important thing you can do.

GLENN: Okay. So the biggest thing we can learn is the Freedom Caucus is nothing more than the Patriot Act. It's a stupid name that makes everybody think that, "Oh, they're the good guys." Is that what I'm hearing?

THOMAS: I do not want to disparage my colleagues. There are some really good --

GLENN: Okay. I'll do it for you. I'm sure there's five in there that aren't total and complete wastes of skin. The rest of them --

THOMAS: I can guarantee you there are five -- there are five very good individuals in there.

GLENN: Are there ten? Ten?

THOMAS: I've never been to a meeting, I don't know.

(laughter)

PAT: But he can't confirm there's ten.

GLENN: He cannot confirm that there are ten good people in the Freedom Caucus.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: Look, here's the thing, Thomas, it's time to put the cards down on the table. If -- if what I have been told by senators, what I've been told by presidential candidates, what I've been told by House members, all on separate occasions, that if this goes wrong, the party is over because exactly what you said. And everything that I said and predicted five or six or seven years ago that the more you screw this up, the more extreme you will have in candidates, exactly what Thomas just said about Donald Trump is exactly what I said was crazy five or six years ago. That's going to happen. And so -- if what these guys have told me, that you lose the party, you lose the election -- I mean, there's nothing -- there's nothing left to lose here. We have to know and put pressure on these people, if that evens work. If it doesn't work, then I'm just done anyway. Will it work?

THOMAS: Please don't give up yet. I will be left alone up here if you give up. But, again, October 29th -- see, on October 28th, Glenn, there's a secret vote behind closed doors with no accountability whatsoever. And I -- and I expect Paul Ryan will probably beat Daniel Webster in that vote. But nobody has to attest for their vote until the next day, when the only constitutional vote that matters happens on the floor. And people have to --

GLENN: Any way that they can make that go away? Any way that they can take that in secret or it not be known?

THOMAS: No. No. It would be heresy. It would be against the Constitution to have a secret vote --

GLENN: When has that stopped anybody in Washington? When has the Constitution stopped a single damn thing?

THOMAS: Some people might try to vote present or be in the cloakroom or not vote that day. Do not let them tell you they didn't vote -- you know, that they stood up that day if they don't vote. Voting present does not work. Our Founding Fathers did not vote present.

GLENN: That's what they're going to do. These guys aren't Founding Fathers. These guys are criminals. They're not Founding Fathers. You know if they have an out, that's exactly what they will do so they can go back to us, oh, look at me, I didn't vote that way. I didn't do that.

THOMAS: Well, it's up to you not to let them have an out. So they need to cast a vote. They can't vote present or be gone that day. They need to cast a vote on October 29th. Don't trust them by what they say, trust them by what they do.

GLENN: Thomas Massie, representative from Kentucky and a guy who I think actually takes the position seriously and says, "I am a representative of the people of Kentucky," thank you for being on with us. I appreciate it.

THOMAS: Thank you.

The Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.