Which Revolutionary Will America Choose — Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump or Ted Cruz

February 09, 2016

Writer

The Context

Are we facing a revolution? Are we already there? Glenn thinks so. But the revolution could go either way.

"I think we're still pre-revolution, but the country is a lot farther down this road than anyone in Washington or the media really understands," Glenn said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Four more years of moderate, wishy-washy conservatives like Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich --- or a Hillary Clinton that keeps the steady "progress" going --- will only lead to more discontent. And if Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump get elected, that discontent will only escalate with their dramatic changes.

"I've been struck by the media saying that people like Ted Cruz are extremists, but at the same time they continue to say that Bernie Sanders is leading a revolution," Glenn said. "And it has stuck out to me because that's exactly what's happening."

If the People Ain't Happy . . .

American citizens are not happy with the way their government is being run — and they haven't been for a long time. Glenn listed these disturbing stats on what Americans currently believe:

• 81% believe the power of ordinary people to control our country weakens every day

• 80% believe the federal government is its own special interest, primarily looking out for itself

• 79% believe we need to recruit and support more candidates for office at all levels of government who are ordinary citizens, rather than professional politicians or lawyers

• 78% believe the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless to create meaningful change because they both are beholden to special interests

• 76% agree with the statement that America cannot succeed unless we take on and defeat the corruption and crony capitalism that is happening in our government

• 75% believe the U.S. government is not working for the people's best interest

• 75% believe powerful interests have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for themselves

• 74% See the bias and slanted news coverage of the media as part of the problem

• 72% believe the U.S. has a two-track economy where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find and where huge corporations get all the rewards

• 72% believe the reason families and our middle class have not seen economic conditions improve for decades is because of the corruption and crony capitalism in Washington

• 71% believe our government is not only dysfunctional, but collapsing before our eyes

• 70% believe the government in Washington does not govern with the consent of the people

• 56% wish there was a third party with a chance of success to fight for their interests

• 15% say the values and principles of their political party are so important that they strongly prefer to vote for the candidates of their party

"If that's not a revolution waiting to happen, nothing is," Glenn said.

Common Sense Bottom Line

America is headed for a revolution. In fact, there are three revolutionaries that will dramatically change the country — Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz — currently in the race for president. Only one is tied to the Constitution.

"These are the three that understand what is happening right now in America," Glenn said. "And the choice is socialism, a strongman or the Constitution. Which one do you want? Because the others will just continue this same game."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: You know, I've been struck by the media saying that people like Ted Cruz are extremists, but at the same time they continue to say that Bernie Sanders is leading a revolution. Have you heard that? They all are saying that there's a revolution that is going on, and they're saying it in a way to protect Hillary Clinton. You know, Bernie Sanders is calling for a revolution. You know, we don't want a revolution, right, Hillary? So revolution. And it has stuck out to me. And it stuck out to me because that's exactly what's happening.

I think we're pre -- I think we're still pre-revolution. But the country is a lot farther down this road than anyone in Washington or the media really understands.

Let me give you some stats. 84 percent of all Americans believe political leaders are more interested in protecting their power and privilege than doing what is right. We all agree with that? 84 percent do.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: 81 percent believe the power of ordinary people to control our country is getting weaker every day, as politicians of both parties fight to protect their own power and privilege. 80 percent believe the federal government is its own special interest, primarily looking out for itself. 79 percent of voters believe we need to recruit and support more candidates for office at all levels of government who are just ordinary citizens, rather than professional politicians or lawyers. 78 percent believe the Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless in changing anything because both political parties are too beholden to special interest to create any meaningful change. 76 percent of all Americans agree with the statement that America cannot succeed unless we take on and defeat the corruption and crony capitalism that is happening in our government. 75 percent of all Americans believe the US government is not working for the people's best interest. Seventy-five people -- 75 percent of the people believe that powerful interests have used campaign and lobbying money to rig the system for themselves.

So far, I agree with absolutely every one of these. Do you?

STU: The only one I disagree with was the one where you said both parties can't get anything done because they only care about their own interests. The Democrats get a lot of stuff done. They get stuff done all the time. They move the country significantly to the left. And they've been successful over a long period of time --

GLENN: It's all moving towards their interest, not the interest of the people.

STU: I suppose. But their interest -- their interest is to make the government bigger. I think that's against the interests of the people, but that's the only one I would even quibble with.

GLENN: Yes. 74 percent see the bias and slanted news coverage of the media as part of the problem. 72 percent of Americans believe the US has a two-track economy where most Americans struggle every day, where good jobs are hard to find and where huge corporations get all the rewards. 72 percent believe that the reason families and our middle class have not seen their economic condition improve for decades and economic growth is stalled, because of corruption and crony capitalism in Washington.

71 percent believe our government is not only dysfunctional, it is collapsing before our eyes. 70 percent of people believe the government in Washington does not govern with the consent of the people. The majority, 56 percent, say they wish there was a third party with a chance of success to fight for their interests. And only 15 percent say the values and principles of my political party are so important that I strongly prefer to vote for the candidates of my party.

If that's not a revolution waiting to happen, nothing is. That's why, quite honestly, if America picks Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, or Hillary Clinton, we are setting ourselves up, I believe, for more revolution and revolutionary discontent in four years from now. Because things are going to get so bad that we need somebody who is going to be dynamic in their change.

Now, you get somebody like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, I believe that's going to be even worse. Because they are going to move the country, but they're going to move the country in a way that I believe Americans don't really fully understand at this point. They're looking for change. Because of these things they're looking for dramatic change, but neither of them are pegged to the Constitution. Rand Paul was pegged to the Constitution. Cruz is pegged to the Constitution. And there was an interesting thing that I heard Ted Cruz talk about, where Ted was -- was speaking about how he had respect for Bernie Sanders.

Now, he's the first guy that I've heard say this. Listen carefully.

TED: You know, actually when it comes to diagnosing the problem, many folks in the press are often surprised when I say in large part, I agree with Bernie Sanders. I agree with Bernie Sanders, that the fix is in, that Washington is corrupt, that it is responding to the giant corporations and the special interests, and the people getting the short end of the stick are the working men and women of this country.

(applauding)

GLENN: Listen to that. Applause, I agree with Bernie Sanders.

TED: Now, where I disagree with Bernie Sanders is on the solution. If government is corrupt, Bernie's solution is, we need more government. I think that's getting it backwards. So I think when it comes to income inequality, Republicans ought to be campaigning on it. What I'm campaigning is all the people trapped away from getting the economic dream, we can get back to the robust economic growth that enables anybody starting with nothing to achieve anything. I think that's the core of our message and how we win.

GLENN: Getting back to the principles of the Constitution. But the problem is that most people aren't talking about the Constitution. Most people don't even understand what the -- I Googled the Bill of Rights this morning, and I thought, "How low on the Google list is the Bill of Rights, compared to, what is socialism? How many people are actually A/B comparing, wait a minute. What is socialist? What is the Bill of Rights saying?" Nobody is paying attention to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the things that have always brought us together.

On the other hand, you see Bernie Sanders with his righteous indignation, but nobody is listening to his solution. They don't know what socialism is. That's a proven fact now. Nobody knows what socialism really means.

On the other hand, you have Donald Trump playing into the same -- there are three revolutionaries. There is Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. Only one of those revolutionaries is pegged to the Constitution now. You also had the fourth for a while was Rand Paul.

PAT: Paul.

GLENN: Now you only have three left. So we know that Ted Cruz, revolutionary, but he is saying, "Go back to the Constitution." Bernie Sanders, his solution is socialism. But most people don't even know what that means. And Donald Trump is revenge. And let me show you an example here. This is getting an awful lot of -- cut 250. This is getting an awful lot of play now. What happened at a rally and what -- this is where the disagreement comes, what he called Jeb Bush after a woman in the audience called Jeb Bush this.

PAT: This is Ted Cruz.

STU: Ted Cruz.

GLENN: Or, yeah, Ted Cruz.

DONALD: Asked Ted Cruz a serious question: Well, what do you think of waterboarding? Is it okay?

And honestly, I thought he'd say absolutely, and he didn't. He said, well, it's -- you know, it's --

(inaudible)

DONALD: Okay. You're not allowed to say, and I never expect to hear that from you again. She said -- I never expect to hear that from you again. She said he's a (bleep).

Because some people -- she just said a terrible thing. You know what she said?

Shout it out because I don't want to --

VOICE: Pussy! (bleep)

DONALD: That's terrible. Terrible.

STU: Unbelievable.

PAT: It's so ridiculous. And he's -- he had her do it again so that everybody would know -- he repeats it.

GLENN: Yeah, he repeats. And his supporters are saying, he never said it. Well, yes, technically he did, and he was just using her as a foil to say this.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Now, listen to how sick the supporters are. This is CNN. You're going to hear a woman fighting against this. She is clearly a leftist, but if you listen to her, she's making sense. And the other woman who is supporting Trump, is a woman who is wearing a cross prominently displayed on her chest.

Now, listen to this.

VOICE: Has anyone heard that word being used in a campaign before? Were you there?

VOICE: Never been used.

VOICE: Look, here's my take. I was not there. But here's my take on this. I'm not a prude, but I think this is the culture of degradation. I think this is an example of why Donald Trump is surging. I do not think you could get away with this even ten years ago. And I think this is an example of really -- I don't want to say the dumbing down, but the lowering of our standards for what is presidential. This should not be accepted.

VOICE: No. Well, but nobody else can get away with it either. I mean, this is very unique to Donald Trump.

PAT: Right. That's true.

VOICE: He has been able to say, really, the most outrageous, amazing things one after the other, time after time. And we've seen his poll numbers go up.

You see, tomorrow, he's going to go on TV, and he's going to tell us he was talking about a baby cat.

VOICE: You're probably right.

GLENN: Now, this is the leftist lady. This is the conservative.

VOICE: I don't think you're understanding what's happening in America. Everyone is talking about Donald Trump's rhetoric. But that's not why he's resonating with one-third of the Republican Party. He's resonating because Americans care about ISIS. They care that 60 ISIS fighters were in Europe on the day 130 Parisians were killed --

VOICE: But, Kaley, he's not saying that. He's calling someone the P-word or repeating that.

VOICE: He did not call someone that.

VOICE: Okay. You're right, but he's repeating a word.

VOICE: He said you shouldn't say that word.

STU: Come on.

PAT: Isn't that pathetic?

VOICE: I was embarrassed. I was there with my 15-year-old daughter, my intern/daughter. And there were a lot of kids in the crowd. I just thought it was one of those -- it was one of those wash-your-mouth moments. I mean, I'm glad my mom wasn't in the audience, or there --

VOICE: You don't have a problem with that as a woman?

VOICE: I don't have a problem with that --

VOICE: Well, I sure as hell do. He said that the POWs were losers.

VOICE: No, he did not. No, he did not say that.

VOICE: I don't know how much Kool-Aid you have to drink in order to lose your ability to hear.

VOICE: Words -- words matter.

VOICE: -- the man today was being sarcastic. Of course, words matter. That's what we're talking about.

GLENN: Did you hear what she just said? Stop for a second. I don't know how much Kool-Aid you have to drink to lose your ability to hear.

PAT: That's a great point.

STU: That's a great point.

PAT: That's a great, great point.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Let me go back to the original point. How much Kool-Aid do you have to drink to lose your ability to question what socialism is? It goes back to these numbers. We are in a revolution. And the mainstream media refuses to see it. The -- the regular political class refuses to see it. There are three people now running that understand it: Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz. Those are the three that understand revolution. Those are the three that understand what is happening right now in America. And the choice is socialism, a strongman, or the Constitution. Which one do you want? Because the others will just continue this same game.

At one level or another, they will continue the crony capitalism and deal-making. Strongman, socialist, or constitutionalist?

PAT: And what's the slogan of New Hampshire?

GLENN: Live free or die. They're picking the die part.

Featured Image: Getty Images

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