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

What the Election Should Be: Bernie Sanders Versus Ted Cruz

January 25, 2016
Ted Tuttle

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.

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.

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.

4 ways Biden is SABOTAGING Trump on his way out of office

ROBERTO SCHMIDT / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden has less than a week left in the White House, but that doesn't mean he's down for the count quite yet.

Next Monday, January 20th, President-elect Trump will be officially sworn into office, marking the beginning of his second term. But after such a bitter and contentious election, the Democrats aren't ready to roll over. Instead, they have been working around the clock to ensure that Trump will face as many obstacles and challenges as possible the minute he is sworn in. These political landmines are designed to sabotage his presidency—at the cost of the well-being of the American people.

Biden's job approval rating currently sits around 38.7 percent, one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, he has nothing to lose from these reckless ploys. Here are four ways Biden and the Left are trying to sabotage Trump:

Pardoning criminals

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

In November, President Biden customarily pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey ... along with his son Hunter and dozens of other controversial criminals, including 37 felons on death row. Hunter's 11-year-long blanket immunity sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents, and we may never know the full extent of the Biden family's crimes and corruption.

Destroying U.S. energy

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

Biden has made several moves that have damaged America's ability to produce its energy independently, including canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office. Earlier this month, Biden signed another order that has dire consequences for the energy sector, effectively blocking any new drilling off the U.S. coast indefinitely. This not only further kneecaps the U.S. oil industry during a time when gas and energy prices are on the rise, but moreover, the way the executive order was written means Trump will have a much harder time undoing it. Thanks, Biden.

Escalating overseas wars

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

America's involvement with the ongoing war in Ukraine has been tenuous from the beginning, but under Biden, it has escalated to a Cold War-like proxy war. Neither pleas from Americans in need nor threats from Russia have deterred Biden. He has approved countless aid packages sent to Ukraine, totaling billions of dollars. Recently, Biden has decided to up the ante by supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles, despite Putin's warnings that Russia would consider this an act of war. It's almost like Biden wants to start WWIII before handing the reigns over to Trump.

Installing a "shadow cabinet"

For years Glenn has warned of the dangers of the deep state, and its very existence has been denied ... until recently. Shortly after the election Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel made a disturbing speech on the House floor where he proposed the creation of a "Shadow Cabinet" designed to hamper the Trump administration and to step in if Trump were removed from office. This "Shadow Cabinet" would be composed of Democrat counter-picks to Trump presidential cabinet members, and they would scrutinize every act made by the Trump administration and propose alternative actions. This just proves that the deep state will do anything to stop President Trump.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

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

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

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

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.