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

New BFFs: Rolling Stone, Sean Penn and El Chapo

January 11, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Talk about strange bedfellows. In what can only be described as an epic PR failure, Rolling Stone magazine and actor/activist Sean Penn teamed up for an exclusive interview with El Chapo, the convicted drug lord who is on the lamb after breaking out of a maximum security Mexican prison. Cue the Mariachi band.

First things first, a little background on El Chapo. He's filthy rich due to his criminal drug empire. So rich that his minions reportedly spent about one million dollars digging a mile-long tunnel so he could walk out of prison---no crawling for this kingpin.

Typically, when one comes across an escaped criminal responsible for murdering thousands of people, one would notify the authorities. Unless, of course, one is a liberal activist that keeps company with unsavory types like Fidel Castro. Enter Sean Penn.

Penn recently spent "weeks of clandestine planning" in order to interview and write an article about El Chapo for Rolling Stone. The communist sympathizer asked hard-hitting questions like, "How was your childhood?" and "Do you have any dreams?" and "If you could change the world, would you?" (By the way, things are hunky-dory for El Chapo, and he wouldn't change a thing: "For me, the way things are, I'm happy.")

As if that weren't enough, Rolling Stone provided the pièce de résistance: complete editorial control to El Chapo.

On the heels of publishing a bogus rape story, Rolling Stone now runs a story in which all control was surrendered to a vicious drug lord on the run from authorities.

In the article, Penn tried to spin an excuse for his secret interview:

I take no pride in keeping secrets that may be perceived as protecting criminals, nor do I have any gloating arrogance at posing for selfies with unknowing security men. But I'm in my rhythm. Everything I say to everyone must be true. As true as it is compartmentalized. The trust that El Chapo had extended to us was not to be f**ked with. This will be the first interview El Chapo had ever granted outside an interrogation room, leaving me no precedent by which to measure the hazards.

However, Penn's twisted sense of loyalty may not pay off this time. Matt Gutman with ABC News tweeted Monday that Mexican authorities are investigating both Sean Penn and Mexican actress Kate del Castillo, who brokered the get together, for meeting with El Chapo.

Enjoy this complimentary segment from The Glenn Beck Program

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

GLENN: El Chapo is in the news. Who is El Chapo? One of the most notorious drug dealers in the world. And, by the way, if El Chapo's people happen to be listening, we love El Chapo. I use his lip balm. He's fantastic.

STU: If he existed, he would be fantastic.

GLENN: If he existed, he would be fantastic. Being here in Texas, we're all for El Chapo.

Anyway, this weekend, Rolling Stone came out, and they said, "Big news, Sean Penn has landed a rare interview with El Chapo." Now, El Chapo is a guy who had escaped from a prison, a maximum security Mexican prison through a tunnel that took a million dollars to dig. So he's in -- he goes and takes a shower, and he opens up the floor of the shower and he drops down into this tunnel, where his people had been digging. How long was this tunnel?

PAT: A mile.

STU: A mile.

GLENN: A mile long they had been digging this mile-long tunnel. And as Stu was explaining it off the air, he didn't crawl through the tunnel. He walked through the tunnel.

STU: Yeah, it was a million dollars to make this tunnel, they think.

GLENN: In Mexico.

STU: Right. The tunnel cost in Mexico is lower than you're thinking.

(laughter)

GLENN: Well, the regulations alone on tunnel collapse by prison, it's crazy.

But, anyway, so Sean Penn has this interview with him. And there's a couple of things. First of all, Sean Penn in the interview, he asks a notorious drug lord, "Do you have any dreams?"

"Do you have any dreams?"

(laughter)

"If you could change the world, would you?" You've got to be kidding me.

JEFFY: Everybody has dreams, Glenn.

GLENN: El Chapo has dreams.

PAT: Even a guy responsible for thousands, if not tens of thousands of murders, he's got big dreams. Yeah, I'd like to kill 100,000. I mean, is that your dream?

GLENN: It's incredible.

PAT: I'd like to enslave the entire United States of America on drugs.

JEFFY: He doesn't want to kill everyone.

PAT: No, he doesn't want to kill his customers. Keep the customers alive.

JEFFY: Just agree with him and everything is fine.

GLENN: So Sean Penn does this interview with this guy. Now, I think that's the bad part of the story. No. It gets worse.

The Rolling Stone magazine actually gave final edit approval to El Chapo.

STU: Yeah. El Chapo said, "I want to approve this article before you print it." Rolling Stone, first of all, agreed to it and then delivered to El Chapo an article in which El Chapo had no changes.

GLENN: So there's levels here. Sean Penn does an interview. Rolling Stone magazine decides to print the interview. Then they decide, "We're going to give the editorial reigns to the guy we're interviewing, the notorious drug lord." That's bad enough. But what they delivered to him, he doesn't make any changes. He's like, "Holy cow, you're kidding me. That's really good. Wow, they said this?"

STU: Seriously, you're going to print this, for me? Is it my birthday?

GLENN: My gosh. You guys know I'm a notorious drug lord, right?

(laughter)

STU: He's actually trying to talk them out of it for their own reputation.

GLENN: So now on Friday, he was recaptured in Mexico. And it had something to do with this interview. Somehow or another, something that happened during this interview tipped the authorities off. Do we know what that was? What happened that tipped the authorities off?

So something happened that tipped the authorities off. And my question is, and I don't believe this for a second. Was Sean Penn working with the government to capture El Chapo?

STU: No, I don't think that's the accusation at all. I've seen some speculation that -- you know, we can figure this out. But some speculation that he, because of the process going on, they somehow were able -- that actually helped them. But it was not intentional help from Sean Penn. Like, they were able to -- because of the details able to track him down.

PAT: No, Penn and the Rolling Stone did not cooperate with authorities on this at all.

GLENN: No, but that's what they would have to say or they'd be dead.

PAT: Yeah, but I'm sure they didn't. I mean, for Rolling Stone to have more credibility than Weekly World News, it's -- it would be despicable. They don't. This is as bad as it can get for a supposed journalistic publication.

GLENN: Well, this is the publication that didn't check the facts on the rape story.

PAT: On the rape story. And now this thing.

GLENN: And they let the drug lord edit facts for the Rolling Stone story.

PAT: How do they survive? How do they have an ounce of credibility?

GLENN: Because there are a lot of people like Sean Penn.

STU: This is weird though. Because this is not typical left-wing lines. My impression of Democrats in this country is not that they want poor people addicted to drugs and murdered in third world countries. Is that part of the platform? I've never heard that.

GLENN: No, no, but I think Rolling Stone appeals to the -- it's like The Nation.

PAT: The renegades.

GLENN: It's the renegade. It's the revolutionary.

PAT: And that's kind of what Sean Penn seems to be, is a revolutionary. Isn't it? He hangs out with revolutionaries. He loves Castro. He loved, what's-his-face from Venezuela?

STU: Chavez.

PAT: Chavez. He apparently likes this guy enough to shake hands with him and have a photograph with him.

GLENN: By the way, is that photograph weird and uncomfortable?

PAT: Yes.

STU: Very weird.

JEFFY: But that's what happens when you get yourself photographed with the Robin Hood-like figure that El Chapo is.

GLENN: That's according to Sean Penn. The Robin Hood-type figure.

PAT: By the way, can we mention here that Robin Hood did not get people addicted to drugs and he did not steal from the rich. He stole from the government who took the money from the poor. He stole from the government and gave it back to the people he stole from.

STU: Because he was frustrated over policies like high taxes.

PAT: Could we for the love of heaven get the Robin Hood story right for a change. I mean, if you want to call this douche bag a Robin Hood-type, he's nothing like that. He's nothing like that.

GLENN: First of all, Robin Hood wasn't addicting people to drugs. And Robin Hood wasn't rich! He wasn't the guy flying around in his private helicopter in his HEP Leer jet.

PAT: El Chapo makes a billion dollars a month.

GLENN: I'm sorry, what?

PAT: A billion dollars a month.

JEFFY: And that's probably low.

PAT: Yeah, that's probably a conservative estimate.

I mean, that's -- that's a pretty good enterprise.

(laughter)

GLENN: If I'm El Chapo and I make a billion dollars a month, I am pissed that the tunnel wasn't carpeted.

PAT: And air-conditioned.

GLENN: If I spent a million dollars to get me out, you realize that last year I made $12 billion.

STU: That's a top line number though. That wasn't all profit.

JEFFY: Yeah. There's a lot of cost.

PAT: Well, I'm sure he'll pay his taxes. He'll declare all that. Right?

GLENN: What do you think his bottom line number is?

STU: Well, I mean, if he's doing -- maybe he's making 20 -- probably drugs, you're probably 50/60 percent profit margin at least.

JEFFY: And then you have to provide food, roads, and medical relief for the people in the mountains that are keeping you safe.

STU: Right. Because that's one of the thing. When you say the Robin Hood-like figure, he's making the Osama bin Laden argument. That al-Qaeda is building schools so a lot of people really like them locally. And the same thing with El Chapo. He's done a lot of things that people in that area love.

He gives away money. I mean, this is what happens with every criminal enterprise. I mean, go back to the wonderful documentary, New Jack City, that described the cocaine, crack in New York City, I think pretty well. They did a good job with it. And at times, he was giving away -- Nino Brown -- as you know, Nino Brown, the drug dealer, was giving away turkeys and everything on Thanksgiving. And the local people loved him. He was also killing a lot of --

GLENN: I would like to challenge your documentary with another documentary. Probably a little closer to this. The documentary about El HEP Guapo.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Where he was found by the singing bush, shortly before they killed the killing bush. And this he was not liked by the local townspeople.

STU: Wow. Look, not every documentary tells the same story.

GLENN: So I think I go with the one that's closer to El Chapo than the documentary El Guapo.

STU: Yeah, but this is how you buy -- it's like what Jeffy was talking about. The people who are in the community surrounding these wonderful palaces don't have any incentive to tell anybody where these palaces are because --

JEFFY: Well, they most definitely have an incentive not to say anything. I mean, when asked if you're in that town. Hey, do you like --

GLENN: Do you like him? I love him.

JEFFY: Yes, I do.

STU: 100 percent approval rating. And he buys people off too. So there's things they get. They think, "Look, he's helping us out, and I don't want to get myself killed, so I'm not saying anything."

GLENN: Imagine, imagine what that's like.

PAT: So congratulations to Sean Penn and Rolling Stone, two Americans -- and an American publication who should know better. They should know better than that.

GLENN: We should know better than that.

PAT: And, of course, they don't.

GLENN: We as a society buy the stupid magazine.

PAT: When was the last time you purchased a Rolling Stone --

PAT: Do we?

PAT: Using the we in that context.

GLENN: As a society, we're obviously keeping them --

PAT: They're in business.

GLENN: Newsweek magazine is not in business anymore.

PAT: Well, except online.

GLENN: As the Daily Beast.

PAT: But, you know, Rolling Stone still actually shows up in grocery stores, doesn't it?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Pretty amazing.

GLENN: It's still making money. I mean, it's not their fault. It's our fault.

PAT: And after these two, the bogus rape story and this one, if you're still buying that magazine, something is wrong with you.

GLENN: What the hell is wrong with you? What are you, high?

PAT: Probably.

Featured Image: Host Sean Penn speaks onstage during the 5th Annual Sean Penn & Friends HELP HAITI HOME Gala Benefiting J/P Haitian Relief Organization at Montage Hotel on January 9, 2016 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Jonathan Leibson/Getty Images for J/P HRO)

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.