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

The Real Question for Trump Supporters Should Be 'Does it Matter?'

January 12, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

History repeats itself and unless we learn from it, we're going to make the exact same mistakes. Glenn asked on radio Tuesday what would happen if we could go back in time to 2008. Is there something more we could have done to reach Obama supporters and make a difference?

Think back to the Lewinsky scandal when Clinton supporters vehemently denied the scandalous accusations. "Doesn't matter," they would say---until it became evident he was guilty of sexual indiscretions. Then, they changed their tune.

Could we have tried harder to help Obama supporters understand why his history with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers mattered? Should we do more now to help Trump supporters look at their candidate's stance on issues and ask, "Does it matter?"

That's a question that does matter.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

GLENN: If we had to do it all over again, is there a way that we could have reached the Obama supporter and actually made -- had them look at things and say, "Okay. No wait a minute. Hang on just a second. You're right. Jeremiah Wright. Boy, that is disturbing." Is there a way that we could -- is there something we could have done that would have opened people's minds intellectually?

STU: I think what you're looking for here, if I'm understanding, is, is there that magical phrase? Is there that magical approach? Is there some tone change or something like that --

GLENN: Yes. Is there anything that we did that we now know -- because history repeats itself. So the next time you come across an Obama supporter, but it's a new Obama, how do you approach them? And we don't repeat the same exact mistakes.

Do you remember, Pat -- and this didn't work -- but remember during the Lewinksy thing, we said, "The question should have been at the very beginning, yes, okay -- because what happened was, he didn't do it. Yes, he did. No, he didn't. Yes, he did. No, he didn't. Yes, he did. He did it. Doesn't matter. He did it. Doesn't matter. He did it. Doesn't matter.

Wait a minute. What? You've been arguing with me for six months that he didn't do it. And you were calling me every name under the sun because he didn't do it. You should have said, even if he did, it didn't matter. You knew it mattered at the time. But six months went by, and so it just inoculated it to the point to where everybody was talking about it didn't really matter then.

So I said, "Next time somebody is, for instance, oh, I don't know taking top secret emails and using them on their own server, instead of saying, yes, she did. No, she didn't. Yes, she did. No, she didn't. Does it matter that she did?" But nobody will ever go on record with it. So there's no way to win. But that's the lesson I learned. Does it matter if Benghazi did happen that way? And it wasn't about the film and she lied, does it matter? To me, yes, it does. I have found to those, they will argue and argue and argue. And in the end, it doesn't matter anyway. So is there any thing we can to do change it? How do we argue a different way?

STU: And that's a great point. Because I think if you get people to answer those questions, what you get the answer to that is no. It doesn't matter to them. Because essentially they're on a team.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: It's impossible to take --

GLENN: Take the offensive team.

STU: I can't argue to a Cowboys fan that they should no longer be a Cowboys fan. There's no logical argument that could ever overwhelm the idea that they like the Cowboys. Eagles is an even better example. I'm a huge Eagles fan. And despite the fact that they've won exactly zero Super Bowls --

GLENN: You're never coming off the Eagles.

STU: Right. I honestly don't care what you say. Their entire stadium is built with giant windmills at the top so they can focus on green energy. You hear me about global warming. I'm not a guy who likes those policies. But you'll never change my mind. That I'm an Eagles fan. So the answer that I believe to your question, essentially, is --

GLENN: Hopeless.

STU: There is not a phrase or approach that will --

GLENN: No, this is happy. This is good.

STU: No, this is really positive. But the answer is that people no longer make these decisions when it comes to elections based on the things we're talking about. Because I honestly believe with this audience and I think a lot of the people in this audience are on this side. But for the people that are holdouts in the Trump campaign. I honestly believed that if you could expose what this man said and believed, they would react to it. The reasoning is, they reacted to it with people like Mitt Romney, whose record is considerably more conservative than Donald Trump.

GLENN: Yes. Mitt Romney is more conservative --

STU: And I don't think he's a conservative guy at all.

GLENN: Yeah, I know.

STU: But he's way more conservative than Donald Trump. And when you go through the record, the same things that you look at and you say, okay. Well, Mitt Romney is a problem. I mean, we had 100,000 calls in the last campaign. Mitt Romney is a problem because he flip-flopped on these issues. I don't trust him on this.

Donald Trump is way, way worse. He's changing his mind week to week on major issues, and it just doesn't matter to that slice of the electorate. Like, if Donald Trump came out and said last week he donated to Barack Obama, would that matter? No.

PAT: I don't think it would. I don't think it would.

STU: It would not party. Once you're on that team, you're on that team. So I don't know how you can possibly change that. They're going to be fans of the squad they love. And that's the thing, period.

PAT: And here's the thing, if Ted Cruz started talking about income inequality today and the fact that women make less than men in the workforce and started using the false statistics that Democrats do, we'd jump off that bandwagon.

GLENN: I'd be off that team today. I'd be off that team.

PAT: We'd be off that bandwagon.

JEFFY: But Ted Cruz is trying that. Right? He's changed that up. Instead of preaching to Stu about how bad the Eagles are, you would just eventually tell them how good another team is and hope that he comes on board with that team and leaves the Eagles on his own. And that's Ted Cruz's plan, right? So instead of being negative --

GLENN: So maybe that's where we went wrong. Instead of saying -- and this is really kind of your first answer, Stu. Have a better candidate.

PAT: Have a better alternative.

GLENN: When I asked you, what did we wrong in 2008? Have a better candidate.

Well, okay. We can't control that. But --

STU: We can.

GLENN: Okay. Here's the thing. Yes, we can. But here's the thing. I spent my last eight years and you've spent your last eight years if you've listened to me and you understand what I'm saying, you've spent your last eight years and maybe, quite honestly, your last 15 years trying to be consistent in your life. Trying to say, "Okay. What does the world really mean? What is really happening to our country? What is happening overseas?" You don't accept things like, "Oh, well, this has nothing to do with Islam." You know it does, and you know that is inconsistent with reality.

So those little inconsistencies with reality bother you. So over the last eight years, especially, you have said, "Okay. What was one of the problems with George?" One of the problems with George Bush was, he got into office, and the Republicans did exactly what they said they weren't going to do. They spent as much money -- well, not as much money as this guy -- but they spent as much money as the last guy. They did the same policies. They had the same things. They were spying on us. They did all the things we said no to.

And so we realized when we got into 2008, one of the things that we have to be, to be able to have any credibility and to be able to win long-term is to be consistent, is to actually stand for something. And so we've spent the last eight years trying to stand for something. Trying to stand up and say, "No, no. I don't care if I win or lose. I wanted to mean something. I want -- I want my word to mean something. I want to be able to stand and sleep at night and say I wasn't part of the problem. I want to be able to go in 2020 and be able to argue, no, my president, what I said and what my candidate said he would do, he did. He didn't get into office and just do exactly the same damn thing that Barack Obama was doing.

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

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.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.