What the Election Should Be: Bernie Sanders Versus Ted Cruz

January 25, 2016

Editor

A lot happened over the weekend. Glenn went to Iowa and officially endorsed someone he hopes will be the next President of the United States. Unlike what some headlines would lead you to believe, he did not endorse Bernie Sanders.

"The press is reporting that I like Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump," Glenn said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Would I vote for Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump? No, I wouldn't. I'll vote third party."

He went on to correct the misrepresentations from the media.

"What I did say this weekend is, 'Here's what the election should be: The election should be Bernie Sanders versus Ted Cruz.' Because here's two honest men who are telling you exactly who they are, exactly what they believe and exactly what they'll do," Glenn said.

Unlike Martin O'Malley and Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders isn't trying to hide the fact that he's a complete socialist.

"Let's be really, really clear---the truth matters," Glenn said.

Glenn also shared a moment he had with his family over the weekend, explaining to his children what he thinks will complete America's fundamental transformation.

Because the fundamental transformation of this country that Barack Obama talked about was making---finishing Woodrow Wilson's dream, making this a place where it's just an administrator. Congress doesn't really matter. It's all about the whims of the president of the United States and what he can get done with his phone and his pen. That is what has been happening for the last 100 years, and it's been happening in both parties.

Listen to the segment from radio or read the transcript below for more. Start at 7:34.

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

GLENN: I've pledged, as Thomas Jefferson said, on the altar of God, to do all that I can to stand against tyranny. Because I have pledged to many in this audience eyeball to eyeball, my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor. And more importantly, because of my children.

I sat down at the dinner table last night with my children. My older children and my whole family, we get together on Sundays, and we eat with the children and the grandchildren. And I said, "If we have Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump, kids, I can't tell you what America looks like in four years. But the fundamental transformation is complete." Because the fundamental transformation of this country that Barack Obama talked about was making -- finishing Woodrow Wilson's dream, making this a place where it's just an administrator. Congress doesn't really matter. It's all about the whims of the president of the United States and what he can get done with his phone and his pen. That is what has been happening for the last 100 years, and it's been happening in both parties.

I said this weekend -- the press is reporting that I like Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump. No. Would I vote for Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump? No, I wouldn't. I'll vote third party.

Do I think Bernie Sanders will be better for the country than Donald Trump? No, I think they're both a disaster. For completely different reasons. But what I did say this weekend is, here's what the election should be. The election should be Bernie Sanders versus Ted Cruz. Because here's two honest men who are telling you exactly who they are, exactly what they believe, and exactly what they'll do.

Bernie Sanders, unlike O'Malley, unlike Hillary Clinton, who will play around the corner and say, "Oh, well, we're not social -- we're not socialists at all. That socialism. Stop being so racist. Stop being so antiwoman by calling Hillary Clinton a socialist. I'm not socialist. What? I'm hiding all of my papers from college on Saul Alinsky. Saul, who? What?" She's lying to you. And let's be really, really clear, the truth matters.

And as I said in my speech this weekend, here's one truth that is self-evident that needs to be spoken. Hillary Clinton should be in prison, not running for president. She should be in prison.

If you and I did what she has admitted to doing, we would number prison. We are a nation of laws and not men. But, see, that is the final transformation. That is the fundamental transformation that Barack Obama has wanted, that we are a nation of men and not laws, that men make the decision when they're in office. And Donald Trump has said that he will -- he'll still do executive orders; his will just be good. Not constitutional: Good.

I went to Iowa against my own self-interests to endorse Ted Cruz this weekend, to break something that I have sworn that I would never do: Endorse somebody for president. Because I think we're at the end, gang. This is it.

What happens in Iowa in nine days may -- may mean the difference between our country surviving as a constitutional republic or not. Are you for the Constitution of the United States of America? And will you protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic?

Ted Cruz was -- was born for this time. He was raised for this time. He memorized the Constitution when he was 13. He can still quote it back.

And America is angry. And it's only going to get worse if we play into the anger. We never make a good decision when we're angry. The press wants Donald Trump. They want Donald Trump to be the candidate on the Republican side because they're going to unleash hell on him.

Now, whether he wins or loses at that point doesn't matter to me. If he is the candidate, he has destroyed the Republican Party because then you don't stand for principles. You stand only for winning and the same kind of progressive ideas.

If he wins the presidency, you can kiss the Constitution goodbye, just as much as you can with Hillary or Bernie Sanders. Something that I've warned since I was on Fox. I'm consistent. If you are thinking about voting for Ben Carson, who is a really good man -- I like Ben. If you're thinking about Marco Rubio, who is a really good man, I like Marco. If you're thinking about voting for Rand Paul -- I like them. But I have to tell you. They do not have a chance of winning in Iowa. And if Donald Trump puts 13 points ahead of number two, it's over. Donald Trump will be the G.O.P. candidate. I'm convinced of it. Unless he implodes. But we've been saying that for a while.

He got up this weekend and he said -- and I quote: I could shoot people on Fifth Avenue, and I won't lose a vote. The hubris on that is stunning. To think that you could say, "Yes, my people are lemmings. It doesn't matter what I do. I could shoot people, and they won't abandon me." Oh, my gosh. It's stunning and dangerous.

But people want to win. And if he's 15 points, 13 points, 15 points ahead of number two in Iowa, it's over. And so I went to Iowa this weekend to look those people in the eye and say, "Can you give America a chance? Can you give the rest of America a chance to have their vote count?" Because the media -- even if it's close -- I think if -- I think if Cruz won by three points, the media will say, "You know what, he wasn't expecting to win in Iowa anyway and, I mean, that's an evangelical -- for him to do that great, it's almost really a win anyway." And then he'll win by ten points in New Hampshire, and then it's over.

Now, I hope I'm wrong. I don't think I am.

I know I'm not wrong on Ted Cruz. Might be wrong on Donald Trump. Hope I am. But I know I'm not wrong on Ted Cruz.

PAT: You're not wrong on Donald Trump either.

(chuckling)

Featured Image: Screen shot from The Glenn Beck Program.

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.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep