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

Glenn's Dream Team

March 02, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Trump's next move? Do all he can to pitt the other candidates against each other and against Ted Cruz. If he can to feed the animosity between them, making sure they stay in their current places, they won't unite and come together.

But, if the candidates do unite behind Ted Cruz --- because he's the only one with the numbers to beat Donald Trump --- there is a pathway to victory.

Glenn outlined his dream team to accomplish just that.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So let me give you a couple of things. I'll tell you what I think should happen. But let me give you a couple of observations from last night. I wrote about last night, about 9 o'clock, that the next move for Trump is do all he can through people like Roger Stone to put all other candidates against Ted Cruz.

He has to keep them apart. So what I mean is to do everything he can to feed animosity between the other candidates to make sure they stay in the places that they are, that they don't start gathering together. Look for those dirty tricks that will divide -- divide each other even more than they already are divided.

But then there's something else that you should watch for with Donald Trump. And he was already doing it. The G.O.P. is at the -- is at the point of death. And their decision is this: Get behind your base of conservatives and deep conservatives that currently support Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio or stand with Donald Trump because he will make deals and move to the progressive middle to get Democrats to vote for him.

I believe that this is what you're going to see Donald Trump do. And this is exactly what he did last night at the -- when he was speaking.

He will begin to move to the left because that's who he really is. He's much more Chris Christie than anything else. And he is a progressive liberal from New York. And so he's going to move now to the left. And he's just going to say, "Look, I'm just trying to reach out because we're going to make this tent bigger. We're going to make this tent uge."

And the -- the G.O.P. has to decide: Do you want to have a uge tent that doesn't include the conservatives, but does include all of the progressive Chuck Schumers and the liberals who are disenfranchised with Hillary Clinton? Are you going to become the Democratic Party?

He will tell the party leaders that he's going to grow the party and they shouldn't worry about the loss of the conservative base, quote, because they're not going to go anywhere. The G.O.P. has never liked the conservatives in the first place, neither has Donald Trump.

Donald Trump has said how stupid those people are in the past. His policies are not small government in the past or currently. He's more progressive than Boehner, John McCain, or McConnell. The G.O.P. will choose to throw in with Trump over Cruz and the conservatives. And I believe it will be the end of the Grand Old Party because they forgot who took them there, what their principles were in the first place, and conservatives are tired of being treated like a redheaded stepchild. And they will not go for it anymore.

So what do we do? Where are we now? What should happen to -- to us? What should Ted Cruz do at this point?

I think it's really quite easy to see a path to real victory here. And that -- that path starts today, really, if Ted Cruz is open to offering some positions.

I think if Ted Cruz came out and said to Marco Rubio -- and I don't think Marco Rubio would take this. But I think if he came out and said, "Marco, we have got to work together. And I know that we have differences, but neither of us are going to win if we keep this going on. You don't have a path to victory." And Rubio will get insulted and argue back and forth. Because I saw him on television, argue back and forth. That's because the government progressives have gotten into his head.

But you don't have a way -- you don't have a way to win. You need to join me. And together we can win. And I'll make you the vice president. Because you're young. What are you, 12? You're young. You'll be able to run --

PAT: You're about the same page.

GLENN: No, he seems he's like 12, doesn't he?

PAT: Yeah. He does.

GLENN: You're going to be able to run for president. You'll be vice president. And then you can run for president after that.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But we have to save the republic.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So you run as vice president. Ben Carson, you're going to be the attorney general if you'll take it. Let's make Rand Paul the secretary of -- of -- of treasury. Let's start to put together a dream team here, and let's march together.

Now, I don't think that's going to happen because there are too many people in Washington that want to keep their position.

As I was driving into the studios here that we have, you know, right by Union Station here in Washington, DC, we're a block away from the capitol, TheBlaze facilities. And I'm looking at all these buildings, and they're all unions. You know, the Association of Realtors. And all these lobbyists. There's too much money here to be made. There's too much power. Too many buildings that have been built for this stuff for those guys to let go of their power easily.

And so they don't want somebody like Ted Cruz. Because Ted Cruz is going to say, "Get out. Get out." All of this is unconstitutional, get out. Let's listen to the people.

But I would pray for a miracle. Because here's why this has to be done now. Stu, correct me if I'm wrong. But I believe Florida and Ohio are winner-take-all states, are they not?

STU: Yeah, they are.

GLENN: So we don't have the time to prove Marco Rubio wrong. He is 20 points behind in Florida. If he would join Ted Cruz, they would win Florida. If they don't join, they will both lose Florida and it's a winner-take-all state, and you're going to have Donald Trump as your nominee. And there won't be any way to go. It will be too late.

The people who say Donald Trump should not be president need to come together. And I said this yesterday to Ted Cruz.

Ted, if you don't walk away with the lion's share of the delegates in second place tomorrow. If it's Marco Rubio, I'm going to come to you and tell you, "You got to get behind the other guy." Whoever has the lion's share of the delegates, we've got to pull together. Because Donald Trump is the end of the G.O.P. And I'm fine with that, quite honestly. But what are you going to replace it with? He is the end of the G.O.P. And he is the end, I believe, of the republic as we know it.

So where do we go from here? Unity is where we go. Unity. And there's a lot of people that are part of the -- the Trump coalition that don't want to be part of the Trump coalition. There will always be -- those people who are just mad and nasty, those people, they're always going to be with Donald Trump. But there's a lot of people who are reasonable and don't like standing next to people who are mean and nasty. Those people, let's show them that we can work together and build a better place and a better country and be good and decent and honorable.

Here's my dream team -- and I think this is doable. I think this is doable and absolutely unstoppable.

Ted Cruz as the president. Marco Rubio -- and I think they should announce this and run as this. I think we should begin to demand this. I think this should go all over the internet.

Ted Cruz as president. Marco Rubio as vice president. Remember, Marco Rubio -- the reason why he's still in it and he's not going to give up is because he can't run for his Senate seat. So his Senate seat is over. So he's out. So he's going to keep going. He has an interest. So Ted Cruz as president. Marco Rubio as vice president. They then say, "Our Supreme Court nominee is Mike Lee. Rand Paul is going to be the Secretary of Treasury. And Ben Carson, we're going to back you with everything we can to get you to take Marco Rubio's seat in the Senate."

How is that not a win for absolutely everyone? And that team would be unstoppable. Tweet that. Facebook that. Get that out. Demand that that's where we go.

Everyone wins: Cruz is president. Rubio, vice president. Mike Lee as our Supreme Court justice. Rand Paul as Treasury Secretary. And Ben Carson as the new Florida senator. Everyone wins. And we'll stomp in November.

Featured Image: From L to R: Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.