Screwed On a Technicality: John Kasich's Underhanded Strategy

March 18, 2016

Writer

Steven Crowder, comedian and founder of LouderWithCrowder.com, brought a little levity to The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday. While Glenn apologized for his choice words about John Kasich the previous day, Steven enlightened the guys with just how underhanded the presidential candidate actually is.

"What really bothered me is the phoniness. He says, 'I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land,'" Crowder said. "What? Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality. There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card."

Now that he told us how he really feels, does Crowder think Kasich stands much of a chance the rest of the way?

"No, nobody wants John Kasich. You know, you get past the ad hominem. We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch. He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill. He's just very off-putting, but he's dishonest," Crowder said.

Guess not.

Check out the rest of the interview below to get your daily dose of laughter. After all, in this sickening election, laughter might not just be the best medicine --- it could be the only medicine.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Steven Crowder from LouderwithCrowder.com is on with us now.

Steven, how are you, sir?

STEVEN: Thanks for having me. You know, you've seen this week. We're all doing the same.

(chuckling)

GLENN: I can't -- I can't figure out if John Kasich is -- has done a deal with someone, if he's just delusional. I watched him win, and I think he really actually thought he won something big on Tuesday.

STEVEN: John Kasich, he's like party guest who just never leaves, only he wasn't invited. Nobody invited John Kasich. You're cleaning up. You're trying to wrap it up. And he's like, all right (inaudible) with you guys. Of course, John Kasich would. No one wants him around.

What really bothers me about him Glenn is the phoniness. So it was one thing to say, well, maybe he's a good guy, and he's delusional. His winning Ohio with the confetti and the fireworks and the rockettes came up. I mean, it was like winning the cup in Mario Kart. I couldn't believe how big of a celebration this guy had. What really bothered me is the phoniness. He says, "I'm not going to take the low road to the highest office in the land."

What? Your only possible path to victory is to screw somebody on a technicality. There couldn't be a more greasy, underhanded low road, and he plays the nice guy card.

(laughter)

GLENN: I haven't looked at it that way, but you're exactly right. There is no way for him to take the upper hand and the high road and win. He's got to knife somebody in the back.

STEVEN: Exactly. There's no way -- I know we push the common format. That's the obvious joke. But it's mathematically impossible for him to win. The only way is if he gets to some kind of a brokered convention, and people screw the voters.

No, nobody wants John Kasich. You know, you get past the ad hominem. We've talked about this, with the haircut and the kind of hunch. He looks like a baby seal caught in a BP oil spill. He's just very offputting, but he's dishonest.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Do you think he cut a deal with Donald Trump or anybody? Because I've heard -- have you guys heard those conspiracies that he's only in it -- he's got a deal with Donald Trump?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You think he cut a deal like Ben Carson did?

STEVEN: I don't even think Ben Carson cut a deal. I really don't. And I know I sound naive. And I really like Ben Carson as a good guy. And I still want to believe he's a good guy. I think he's somebody who is very bright. But he's not necessarily politically savvy. And I think if you read his book, and I've read his book, he wants to believe the best in people and he's very forgiving. And I think he just bought it. I think he probably sat Donald Trump down and said, "You know, just not be so decisive. And I need to know that you won't, for example, call another candidate a pedophile."

And Donald Trump just said, "I won't do it." And he said, "Good enough for me." And he just endorsed him.

(laughter)

STU: Where was that treatment with Cruz though? He thinks Cruz is Satan, and Cruz didn't even do anything.

STEVEN: Did he say that about Cruz? I didn't read that. I know John Boehner did.

STU: He didn't actually call him Satan. But, you know, he came out and was calling him a liar. He said that he was doing all these dirty tricks. Then Cruz apologized to him. He -- he then -- Cruz offered to meet with him.

GLENN: Yeah, he apologized twice.

STU: He would not --

GLENN: Wouldn't forgive him. Wouldn't forgive him.

STEVEN: Well, okay. Then that obviously changes the game.

I mean, if you're Ben Carson, it's kind of like when you have a guy who you know who is just in this marriage and his kids don't respect him. Everybody has that dad in the flock. And he's just miserable when he sinks back into his chair.

You kind of get that sense with Ben Carson. He openly said, "If there were another scenario, I would endorse someone else. But there wasn't, so I'm picking Donald Trump." It doesn't really make sense as far as the leap. I didn't know that about -- I know obviously John Boehner literally called Ted Cruz Lucifer. So I wanted to make sure that Ben Carson didn't hop on that train. He might.

I think the guy is just a nice kind of go-along guy. And he might have been in the room, and John Boehner says, "Hey, Ted Cruz is Lucifer." And Ben Carson could just say, "Okay. I'll go with that."

GLENN: Let me ask you this: I was watching a speech with Bernie Sanders. And I get the fact that Bernie Sanders is talking about, you know, socialism and it's a totally new track and, you know, it's exciting and everything else.

But I'm watching the crowd that's standing behind him. And I'm thinking to myself, the whole time I'm watching, the guy could drop dead of a heart attack in the middle of his speech, and I don't know if anyone thinks that he could live long enough for the four years that he would be in office. And I don't know what people see in him as a person, other than he's got this socialist thing going for him.

Who are the people that are voting for Bernie Sanders? Really?

STEVEN: It's funny that you bring that up, though. Because remember Matt Damon talking about the actuary tables, as it related to John McCain. And here you have Bernie Sanders -- true story, you know, I did that video at the rally. We actually have like a Christmas roll that we just figure we'll roll out sometime. It's about two and a half minutes of Bernie Sanders mid-speech going -- just coughing and making bizarre noises. Like you think he'll just want to keel over. Kind of like with Hillary Clinton, they whittled down the line to 13 minutes. We just couldn't whittle it down. Every couple of minutes, Bernie was (coughing). All the time. I mean, I swear to you. I have the footage. And we couldn't fit it in, it was too much.

You know, we wrote about this on the site. And I have a writer, Courtney, who is my main editor. So I've written about this from a male perspective. And as a woman, she wrote a great piece on it. I would highly recommend people read it. She's getting a lot of flak about how, if you are a Bernie Sanders voter, if you believe it's the government's job to provide for you, if you don't believe you can do it on your own, you're not a man. You're not a man I can respect.

And that's something I've always felt. It really is hard in 2016 to be a male. And when I say be a man, I don't mean drinking beer and burping. There are people who do that, and they abuse their wives. There are people who are macho, and they're horrible men. I'm talking about a man who can lead his family, a man who believes that he can provide for his kids.

That's what makes someone a man: Their families, their communities, people under their tutelage are flourishing. People voting for Bernie Sanders don't believe they can do it. They'll tell you it's out of their control. The system is rigged against them. And it's someone else's job to pay for it.

So we wrote about that on the site. Got a big reaction. It really is -- you know, men have been shamed because of just who they are. Right? Your male privilege. Well, Bernie Sanders exemplifies the antithesis of that. It is radically anti-rugged individualism to believe that you have no control over your destiny, but the 72-year-old Jewish socialist is going to fix it to you. That's not happening.

GLENN: So you're saying you cannot be a man if you're standing on the stage or if you're voting for him; even if you have the correct genitalia, you're not really a man?

STEVEN: I don't know now. The new rules and Caitlin Jenner still carrying around the equipment but is a woman, so your guess is as good as mine. But the spirit is that. Yeah.

GLENN: Tell me about the Buzzfeed thing. Because you did -- you went around -- you wrote about a black guy dressed as a preppie for a week to prove microaggressions. Tell me about this.

STEVEN: Buzzfeed. I can hear Stu. Did Stu or Pat make a reference article? It seems that not many conservatives saw it.

STU: Maybe I didn't.

STEVEN: It's huge. It's all over Buzzfeed. It's this black guy. And he writes microaggression. Black lives matter. He talks about dressing nicely and sort of dressing down. You know, in sweatpants and a hoodie. And talking about how people treat him differently. So the big examples of discrimination are when he was dressed in a suit and tie, you know, the bus drivers were nicer to him. The people at the cleaners were nice to him. People lent him some change; whereas, when he was dressed in sweatpants and a baggy hoodie, they didn't treat him very well.

Now, he writes this, and his conclusion is racism. And so I read, and I just said, "This proves the opposite." Listen, if someone hates black people, you're not tricking them out with a skinny tie. Okay? Like, isn't this wonderful? You're a black guy, you put on a blazer, and nobody cares.

But apparently he thought this was proof that if you treat someone who dresses nicely, well, you're a racist. And I don't go into Banana Republic in sweatpants. They look at me funny. So I just don't go into Banana Republic anymore because I only wear sweatpants.

STU: But you're right, it actually proves the exact opposite.

GLENN: The exact opposite.

STU: If you are a person who walks around -- if you're intimidated by a black person in a suit, for example, and you are not intimidated by a white person in a gang attire, then you're racist.

STEVEN: Right.

STU: But that's different. That's a totally different story.

STEVEN: Right.

STU: It's based on the dress. It's based on -- if you're going down and you have a bunch of people coming at you, looking like Eminem in their prime, you might very well be intimidated. That doesn't make you racist against whites.

STEVEN: Eminem. At least Eminem had a prime. What about my prime?

Listen. You could take Glenn, right? Take off the cardigan. Okay. Get rid of the scruff there that he has going. And if you put him in no-belted prison pants and, you know, a giant red hoodie that looks like he's not staying neutral. He's in the Bloods. And you walk him down the streets of Inglewood, I'm going to walk on the other side of the street. So that gives you some context. And that's exactly what this guy proved.

GLENN: I think there's a slam in there someplace. I'm just not sure exactly where it is.

STU: Yeah. He's using you as the least threatening --

GLENN: I know. Steven Crowder. LouderwithCrowder.com. LouderwithCrowder.com. Thanks, Steven. We'll talk to you again.

Featured Image: Screenshot from YouTube

'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 America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

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