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 Predictions That Have Come True From 1999 to 2010

March 17, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Glenn warned for years that if things kept going the way they were going, we'd be in for a repeat of 1968. Nobody in the media seemed to agree.

That's why it's surprising to see headlines now proclaiming "This Could Be the Summer of 1968" --- everywhere!

Related:Glenn's Prediction for 2016: 'You Can Write This on Your calendar'

During his radio show Thursday, Glenn pulled out a chalkboard to outline some of his past warnings that were mocked by the media at first, only to ultimately come to pass.

"We've been wrong on a lot of things, but there's been a clear pattern," Glenn said. "As you start to put these things together, you can see that we have --- as a group, you have --- because you've taken the beatings for these because everybody mocked you at home. But we have seen over the horizon, and I want to fill you with the hope that what's over the horizon is tough, but good."

Watch the segment from The Glenn Beck Program below.

1999: NYC --- Osama bin Ladin

So let's start with 1999, Osama bin Laden. I was on the air on WABC in 1999. And in 1999, I said, "Are you ready to fight terror? It's a completely different world. Osama bin Laden -- there will be blood, bodies, and buildings in the street."

2003: Downfall of the GOP

Okay. The next one, would you say it was the downfall of the G.O.P.? Because I started saying that pretty early.

PAT: Yeah. In 2004, maybe.

GLENN: '3, '4. Something isn't right.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I starred telling people -- I started talking to them on the air. If anybody is a long-term listener, they remember that I would talk on the air and say to everybody in Washington, "Do you realize what's happening? Do you realize that you're disenfranchising people?"

Then what?

2004: Economy --- Housing Crisis

STU: I mean, you certainly were warning about the economy collapsing pretty early.

GLENN: That was '04. Because I remember I was saying during the election of Bush. That was the housing bubble and the banking crisis. Because I was talking about how, don't take out these loans.

2006: Iran --- End Times Theocracy

STU: I mean, that was -- that was a lot of that -- that period was economy and radical Islam, were the two things that you were talking about a lot during that period of time.

GLENN: Yeah, that was the rise of Iran.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So maybe you should put that: The rise of -- what do you call it? End-of-times Iran.

JEFFY: The head of the state.

PAT: And the Mahdi.

GLENN: Yeah. The Mahdi. The Twelfth Imam.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So end-times Iran or Islam.

STU: That doesn't mean you were predicting the end of times though. It looks -- the way I wrote that looks like you predicted the end of times and also you predicted Iran.

GLENN: No, but I was the only one -- remember how everybody said that we were crazy when I said, "Wait. We've got to start talking about the Mahdi. We have to start talking about the Twelfth Imam."

STU: Right. It's their prediction.

GLENN: These guys believe that they're in the end of times.

STU: I'll put "the end."

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Now it looks like Iran is going to make the end of times -- eh, forget it.

2008: Europe --- Hatreds of the '30s

STU: You had the rise of these sort of crazy groups in Europe.

GLENN: Greece.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So I would say --

PAT: Anti-Semitism would come back.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Let's say -- because I remember using the phrase a lot, "the hatreds of the '30s."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So the Nazis, the anti-Semitism. And that was specifically in Europe.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And I think that's happened.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: The hatreds of the past. Europe is on the verge of complete collapse.

STU: The Iran one is still bothering me.

2008: Unmasking the Socialists

GLENN: How about the unmasking of the Marxists?

STU: Yeah, that was probably around 2008 too. That was --

GLENN: The Marxists. That came after, remember, the -- we're all socialist now. And I said, "There will come a time when they will just take off the mask and say, 'Yeah, it doesn't work.'"

STU: Right. I mean, and for those people who say that hasn't happened, you'll notice the guy who is in close second place in one of the primaries --

PAT: Bernie Sanders.

STU: -- is an admitted socialist.

2008: Bubba Effect

GLENN: I would say 2008. But I think it was 2006 when I talked about the Bubba Effect.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But you can say 2008. And that -- that's fully here. And that was not a prediction. That was actually talking to the Special Forces in America. And that's their prediction, that the Bubba Effect would happen.

STU: I can't remember when I've actually written this much. This is so weird writing. I'm so used to typing; I don't know how to write anymore.

2010: The Caliphate

PAT: The caliphate. Of course.

STU: Got you.

GLENN: That's 2010. Yep.

2010: The Restoring Series

GLENN: I would do in 2010 or 2009, I would do honor, courage, love. The Restoring series. Because that's the key.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And later in the program, I want to explain that. Because that's really important.

STU: When was that though? That was 2009.

PAT: We did that in 2010.

GLENN: '10?

STU: '10. Yeah, Restoring Honor was 2010. Right? Or 2009.

PAT: Yep. 2010.

GLENN: 2010.

STU: Well, probably then started in 2009.

2010: The Pendulum

GLENN: I would go for the pendulum -- when did we do the pendulum show? And I said, "The pendulum is going to swing back." That was probably 2010.

Remember when I had the pendulum and I said --

STU: We'll have to get more in a minute.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- but it's going to swing back and --

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: -- and then there would be the rise of the right.

We're doing this for a reason. I want you to see how these all tie together and what the answer is, and we're going to stand alone if we have to. We're going to stand alone.

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.