Ben Carson's Allegations: Much Ado About Nothing

February 03, 2016

Writer

The Context

Following the Iowa Caucus, presidential candidate Ben Carson said that, "Dirty tricks were used in Iowa." He made the charge that Ted Cruz's campaign knowingly and deceitfully told caucus goers that Carson was dropping out of the race.

"I was reasonably happy today, until I, you know, discovered the dirty tricks that were going on and people spreading rumors that I had dropped out and that people should caucus for someone else," Carson said to multiple news outlets.

He Said, CNN Said

It all began with a news report from CNN stating Ben Carson was going to take a few days off, not go to New Hampshire and possibly make a big announcement next week. The Cruz campaign passed on this news to caucus goers in Iowa. Once Carson's allegations became public, the Cruz campaign also addressed the issue head on.

"On the Ben Carson allegations, it's just false. We simply as a campaign repeated what Ben Carson had said --- had said in his own words. He said after Iowa he was going to go back to Florida for a couple days, and then he was going to go to D.C. for the Prayer HEP Breakfast," Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said in an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "And what that told us was he was not going to New Hampshire. That's not a dirty trick. That was really surprising by a campaign who was once leading in Iowa, saying he's not going to come to New Hampshire. I mean, that's a news item."

Context Matters

Put into context, the CNN report more than implies Carson would be suspending his campaign --- and that's exactly what CNN speculated.

"On CNN they were speculating that he [Carson] was going to drop out because nobody in their right mind does that, especially with the excuse that Ben Carson gave to the press," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "You're running for president of the United States. You have to go to New Hampshire. Everybody got on their plane the next morning and flew to New Hampshire."

Excuses, Excuses

While Glenn and his co-hosts greatly admire Dr. Carson, his excuse for not going directly to New Hampshire just didn't hold water.

"He had to go get a set of fresh clothes," Co-host Stu Burguiere revealed.

Can you hear crickets chirping?

"That's just an unreasonable statement," Glenn said. "You could say this, 'I have personal issues I have to deal with. I just have to go home for two days and be with my wife. I just need to be at home with my family for two days. I'll be back in New Hampshire in two days.' Not, 'I'm going home because I have to get a fresh pair of clothes. And then I'm going to a prayer breakfast in Washington. We'll check back with you.' That's ridiculous."

Common Sense Bottom Line

Ted Cruz apologized to Ben Carson for the confusion surrounding the CNN report --- and the Cruz campaign's subsequent response. However, there were no "dirty" dealings.

"If there's a chance that somebody is dropping out of the race, you're darn right I'm going to get my people on and say, 'Go over and get those Ben Carson people because they identity with us and they're good, and if he's dropping out of the race, let's get them.' There's nothing wrong with that," Glenn said. "That's not a line. That's not cheating. That's not thievery. That's not dishonest."

Listen to this complimentary segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: All right. Let's start with the audio where Ben Carson says, "Dirty tricks were used in Iowa." It's cut 542. Listen to this.

BEN: I was reasonably happy today, until I, you know, discovered the dirty tricks that were going on and people spreading rumors that I had dropped out and that people should caucus for someone else. I mean, do you think that that's something that is acceptable?

PAT: I don't think that's something that happened.

GLENN: Okay. Let's explain. Let's explain what happened. He made this charge. And he was making the charge that Cruz played a dirty trick, and what Cruz did was tell the caucus goers that -- not Cruz. Not Cruz. Cruz campaign people and the local or state people, right? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. His name is on it. So it doesn't matter.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: So the Cruz campaign said that he was going to drop out and so -- next week he was going to drop out. In fact, I want to get this right. The press release that they released to their caucus goers said that CNN reported that Ben Carson was going to take a few days off next week and not go to New Hampshire, and then had a possible big announcement next week. So they should convince caucus goers for Ben Carson to come over to Cruz. When that was found out, Carson said, "Dirty tricks were used." And here's the response from the Cruz campaign.

VOICE: On the Ben Carson allegations, it's just false. We simply as a campaign repeated what Ben Carson had said -- had said in his own words. He said after Iowa he was going to go back to Florida for a couple days, and then he was going to go to DC for the Prayer HEP Breakfast. And what that told us was he was not going to New Hampshire. That's not a dirty trick. That was really surprising by a campaign who was once leading in Iowa, saying he's not going to come to New Hampshire. I mean, that's a news item.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, it's not them reading into this. This is what CNN reported. And on CNN, they were speculating that he was going to drop out because nobody in their right mind does that, especially with the excuse that Ben Carson gave to the press.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you know what the excuse was?

PAT: I -- I don't know.

(laughter)

STU: Oh, it's totally believable.

GLENN: It's totally believable. Now, hang on. You're running for president of the United States. You have to go to New Hampshire. And the next thing that's beginning right away. Everybody got on their plane the next morning and flew to New Hampshire.

JEFFY: That evening.

GLENN: That evening.

PAT: It's a week away. Less than that.

GLENN: He didn't go because...

STU: He had to go get a set of fresh clothes.

PAT: No way. That was really the excuse?

GLENN: Yes, that's the excuse.

JEFFY: To be more specific, I believe it was he had to get new suits. Right? Different suits?

STU: Well, I believe the quote was "a set of fresh clothes."

PAT: He's only a neurosurgeon. He can't afford to run out and do that at a store.

STU: No. On the fly.

PAT: You want him to go to a men's warehouse and buy a whole new suit?

GLENN: You're a presidential candidate -- let me tell you something. You're Ben Carson. You're Ben Carson.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Who, by the way, has one of the best-run campaigns. The guy has plenty of money.

PAT: He's got a lot of money.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. And the campaign could buy the suits. You could hire somebody to come. You could get somebody to make a suit for you in Iowa. You could hire the best people in the world to come and make you a suit or bring you suits. You could hire a department store to come and bring you the suits, if you're Ben Carson.

JEFFY: They probably would do that for Ben.

GLENN: Of course they would. Of course they would.

PAT: They love him, they would probably do it for free.

GLENN: You could call any department -- you could call Macy's. You could call HEP Burgdorf or Nordstrom's or something like that.

PAT: Oh, not in Iowa. There's the problem. He's in Iowa.

GLENN: You can call them in New York and say, "I'm Ben Carson. I need somebody to come and bring a tailor and bring some suits to me." And that's easy to do.

STU: And that's high-end dealing with it.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: Another way to deal with it. I haven't done my personal research on it, but it's my understanding that there are dry cleaners in New Hampshire. So in theory, it's possible that you would bring your old clothes to New Hampshire and get them dry cleaned.

GLENN: There's another thing. Let's say you rip your pants or whatever.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

GLENN: Remember when we would go on the road. We would be on the road for like a month, month and a half.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You remember how many times one of us, we would get to a town and we'd go, "I've got to find a men's store. I got to go find a men's store. I need to buy two new shirts. I need a jacket."

JEFFY: Something.

GLENN: And we would -- one of us, invariably would always have to stop once a week or something. One of the would say, "I have to get some socks." That's what you do.

PAT: Well, yeah, we were in Cleveland a couple years ago, and it was bone-chilling cold, and none of us were dressed for it. Remember that?

GLENN: Yeah, there was something that happened. We were on the road. We weren't supposed to go there. And it was -- I don't remember what happened. But we flew there. We got there at like midnight. We had meetings or shows to do. And we found a place that opened at 8 o'clock in the morning. We were like, "Okay. We need coats. We need coats."

JEFFY: Are you saying you didn't fly back home?

GLENN: We didn't fly back home.

PAT: That's just ridiculous.

GLENN: Here's the thing. That's just an unreasonable statement.

PAT: It is. It is.

GLENN: Just an unreasonable statement. If that really what he has, then that shows this man is not taking this campaign seriously.

STU: Right. And, look, maybe he just wanted to go home and have a night at home during the campaign. That's fine. He gave an excuse that sounded like an excuse a campaign makes when they're about to drop out. People started speculating that they were going to drop out.

GLENN: That's what was happening on CNN.

STU: It happened on CNN. It happened certainly all over social media.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And so Cruz eventually apologized for his campaign because they didn't update it after he came up with the excuse. So he told --

GLENN: Would you have bought that excuse?

STU: I didn't buy it.

GLENN: I wouldn't have bought that excuse.

STU: That's a good argument for Ben Carson to drop out of the race.

GLENN: You could say this, "I have personal issues I have to deal with. I just have to go home for two days and be with my wife. I just need to be at home with my family for two days. I'll be back in New Hampshire in two days."

PAT: That's believable. That's believable.

GLENN: Not, "I'm going home because I have to get a fresh pair of clothes. And then I'm going to a prayer breakfast in Washington. We'll check back with you." That's ridiculous.

STU: It's a terrible idea, if that's the way it is. And beyond that, like, look, what did it cost? Let's just say crazy, it was 100 votes. Crazy, I mean, Ben Carson finished in fourth by 18 percent. 19 percent. He was not on the verge of winning and lost by 20 votes and has cost him the election.

PAT: No way.

STU: He finished fourth place. No matter what happened with this, he was going to finish in fourth place.

GLENN: No, he was not going to beat Marco Rubio.

STU: It's silly. This is Ben Carson saying, "Look, this isn't going the way I hoped." And, again, we like Ben Carson. He's a good guy.

GLENN: I really like Ben Carson.

STU: He's frustrated. And he's making -- you know, he's getting desperate.

GLENN: Here's the thing, you know, I talked to Ted Cruz over the weekend, and I said -- because some of this stuff that was being said about him is just unbelievable.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: How Marco Rubio can sleep at night is beyond me because he is just lying. Just lying. There's a difference between, you know, making mistakes because everybody makes mistakes. Making mistakes and lying. And when you are -- when you are -- you know, if you're on the stage and you're like, "Look, your record on the border is this, this, and this." But once you

have -- you know, people all coming out, the Washington Post and everyone else going, "You're lying about that. That's not true," and you continue to do it --

PAT: That's a Barack Obama tactic.

GLENN: It's a Barack Obama tactic, and it shows that you have no respect for the truth. And that to me says something about your character.

PAT: It does to me too.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. That's different than this. I don't think Ted Cruz was lying. I wouldn't have bought that. The guy is going to get clothes?

PAT: No way.

GLENN: So what happens? It's not that he's trying to hurt him. He has to be the first one on those -- those votes. Because everybody -- why do you think Donald Trump came out and said, "By the way, I love Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee, you're the best. I just want to French kiss Mike Huckabee and give give him a building."

PAT: He wants that whopping 2 percent.

GLENN: He does. He wants that 2 percent. So if there's a chance that somebody is dropping out of the race, you darn right I'm going to get my people on and say, "Go over and get those Ben Carson people because they identity with us and they're good, and if he's dropping out of the race, let's get them." There's nothing wrong with that. That's not a line. That's not cheating. That's not thievery. That's not dishonest.

PAT: Right.

STU: No. Every candidate would do that. The only reason that Cruz apologized is because they didn't send a second message to correct the first message once Carson came out with this excuse that I don't believe at all. And I'm sure no one in the campaign believed. But, still, maybe they should have done that, I don't know. But I think with the Rubio stuff, what's interesting with that, Trump in a way has Overton windowed our expectations so far. That when Rubio says something that's not true about Cruz's record, I'm like, eh. It almost -- because we have the other guy saying, "This guy was born in Saskatchewan." His attacks are so nuts, that the typical political falsehoods don't seem as bad.

PAT: He was born in Saskatchewan.

GLENN: Well, that kind of goes to -- last night, I did a monologue on television. And I talked about the thing that nobody is really talking about in this. Nobody is talking about the Iowa race in this way. We're sitting here talking about, you know, Cruz and Carson and Rubio and Trump. Nobody is talking about 50 percent of the Democrats voted for an outright socialist

Featured Image: Ben Carson speaks at his Iowa Caucus Night Party in the Marriott Hotel on February 1, 2016 in West Des Moines, Iowa. Carson is projected to finish fourth in the GOP running. (Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

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

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Picking up his torch

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two turning points, decades apart

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

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

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

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

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

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

A time for courage

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Muhammad to Marx

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

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

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

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

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glenn's Show Prep

Ben Carson's Allegations: Much Ado About Nothing

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

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

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

Picking up his torch

Two turning points, decades apart

A time for courage

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

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

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

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

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

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

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

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

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

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

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