There's No Carrying Water for Ted Cruz

This election season, Glenn finds himself in what he calls "a refreshing place." Why? He can finally fulfill a promise he's made to himself the last two election cycles: support a candidate in its purest form, without compromise or feeling like he's "carrying water."

"What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter [is] I have not once had to make an excuse for something he has done. ...Not once," Glenn explained.

No justifying something stupid he's said.

No justifying something cruel he's said.

No justifying his voting record.

No reconciling his private behavior versus his public behavior.

No apologizing for indiscretions with interns.

No explaining away something he did five years ago.

"Man, it is nice to be able to sleep at night and feel good that I don't have to carry a bit of water for any man," Glenn said.

Refusing to serve someone's interests comes at a price, though.

"Why is this show one of the only shows that doesn't hold water for Ted---for Donald Trump? I'll tell you why," Glenn said. "We don't have any friends. And we've often said, 'That's a really bad thing. Really bad thing.' And the reason why we don't have any friends is because we won't carry anybody's water. We just won't do it. If they screw up, we won't carry water."

Where does Glenn place his loyalty? With his audience and the truth---simple, freeing and refreshing.

Listen to a program segment below.

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

GLENN: I find myself in a very refreshing place. And it is a place I promised myself I would be in, but I have -- I promised myself for the last two elections I would be in this place. But I have faltered on that because I've been like, "Okay. Well, we have to get somebody in. Better than Barack Obama." And I said to this audience, "You stop me. If I get to that point, you've got to stop me. I will not vote for somebody who is just really bad. And I've convinced myself. Please stop me."

What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter, I have not once had to make an excuse for something he's done. I have not once had to say, "Yeah, I know, but he's really good on other things, though." I have not once had to justify one of his votes. I have not once had to justify something stupid, something callous, something mean, or something cruel that he has said. I have not once had to dismiss or justify his behavior, either towards other people in private, in public. Not once have I had to justify that. Not once have I had to apologize for something he did to an intern. Not once have I had to say, yeah, but that's that was five years ago, he's a different man now. Not once. That puts me as a voter and as a supporter -- I'm not carrying any water for this guy.

The only water I have to carry is when somebody says, "Yeah, well, he's not really conservative." Have you read his resume?

"Well, he doesn't really know the Constitution." Again, have you read his resume?

"Well, he's not really a good dad." Where do you get that?

"Well, he's in with these people." How? How?

"He's part of the establishment." They hate him.

"He's inconsistent." In what way? Name something you can say about Ted Cruz. I don't have -- all I have to do is correct the errors. I don't have to justify what he has done.

Never before in my life -- and I will tell you, it was like this with Ronald Reagan until two things, he made the deal with amnesty and the Iran contra affair. The Iran HEP contra affair, I happen to believe Ronald Reagan, but I'm not sure.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate I have -- and we watch these guys. You know when he was first on. We didn't know if we should buy him. We didn't know if we should believe him.

And I looked him in the eye, and I said on the air, "We'll be your worst nightmare." Why is this show one of the only shows that doesn't hold water for Ted -- for Donald Trump? I'll tell you why.

We don't have any friends. And we've often said, "That's a really bad thing. Really bad thing." And the reason why we don't have any friends is because we won't carry anybody's water. We just won't do it. If they screw up, we won't carry water.

My bond, my loyalty is to you. You were my friend long before any of these clowns were my friends. You've done more for me than anybody else I know. My loyalty is to you and to the truth. And too many people in the either are friends of Donald Trump -- I play golf with him. I know him. I've been to dinner with him. I've had all these relationships with him. And so I excuse these things because I'm a friend of his.

If you were a judge, you would recuse yourself. You would say, "I cannot discuss him in any way because I'm a friend." You would be -- you would be recused.

I'm not saying this as a bad thing. I'm saying this is human nature. You don't want to piss off your friends. You know, and I'll do you a favor. And so you're either doing that candidate, whichever candidate it is, a favor because I'm going to excuse you on this one because we're friends. We've got a good relationship.

I told Ted Cruz, "We're going to be your worst nightmare. We are not carrying any water for you. We will not excuse -- when the thing with the TPP happened, what did we say? We didn't excuse him. We said, "I don't understand this. I don't get this at all." We were the first ones on board saying, "Wait a minute. What are you doing, Ted?" What, Stu?

STU: I was going to say, you guys more than me. I was more in favor than you guys were.

GLENN: But we weren't.

STU: No, you guys stepped in immediately.

GLENN: We don't carry water. And I have to tell you something. It is so unbelievably freeing. It is a pleasure to be -- and if you can find another candidate like this, go for it. But it is a pleasure to be a supporter for Ted Cruz where I don't have to apologize. I don't have to comprise my credibility. What's wrong with the conservative movement? What is the biggest problem with the conservative movement and the G.O.P.?

STU: Comprising principles.

GLENN: And? And how do you feel? Why are you so mad at the G.O.P.? Because you've been out there with your friends defending these clowns and saying, "We're not like that. We don't mean that. That's not what we do. It's your side that does that." And then you elect them, and then they get in. And then you're like, "Son of a bitch. I've just carried all that -- you've hurt my credibility."

I don't have to do that with Ted Cruz. So the reason why these attacks on Ted Cruz are not going to work, one, he's 66 percent everybody's second choice. So anybody who attacks him -- if Rick Santorum attacks him, there's a good chance half of his support really likes Ted Cruz. And it makes you go -- the only thing you don't like about Ted Cruz is, I don't think he can win. That's the only thing -- that's the only negative I've heard on Ted Cruz. I don't know, his personality. I don't know if he can really connect with the American people. It's never about his policies. It's never about anything of substance. It's about, I don't think he can win. So when somebody attacks him, you immediately go, "Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. He's the only guy out there that is completely solid. If he had the personality of Ronald Reagan, we would all be in the boat for this guy." If Ted Cruz had the personality of Marco Rubio, this would be done. It would be done.

And so when somebody, who doesn't have the record of Ted Cruz, starts to say, "Well, you know what, he's really not -- you go, "Hang on. That doesn't make sense." And so you immediately demote -- you give demoting points to your guy because you're saying, "Wait a minute. That doesn't compute. So something is wrong. You're part of the problem."

PAT: We all like Rick Santorum. Look how it affected us, when he started attacking Ted Cruz. It pissed us off.

GLENN: I have no -- because we know it's dishonest. We know it's dishonest.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during the Sunshine Summit conference being held at the Rosen Shingle Creek on November 13, 2015 in Orlando, Florida. The summit brought Republican presidential candidates in front of the Republican voters. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?