Glenn's Stream of Consciousness: White Power, Progressives, Prohibition and Poison

May 12, 2016

Writer

Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program, Glenn proved why liberals have the advantage when it comes to soundbites. It actually takes time and thought to explain connections that form the reality we live in.

"I just want to take you through the stream of consciousness that is The Glenn Beck Program here. Show you where we've been and where we're headed," Glenn said.

Glenn's stream of consciousness included the white supremacist Trump delegate, Netflix, the downfall of network television, Prohibition, Carrie Nation and Woodrow Wilson. How are they all connected?

For starters, Netflix is like beer and network television is like Prohibition in this instance.

"They said that Netflix and Amazon would be the death of television. It's never been better. It's never been better. Why are you not watching shows that are spending as much money, if not more, for broadcast television? It might be easier to ask, 'Why are you watching the shows on Amazon and Netflix that are produced for those guys?'" Glenn asked.

Co-host Stu Burguiere hit the nail on the head.

"Part of it is, I think, they don't have the same hang-ups. They don't care. They don't care about being politically correct. They don't care . . . they just do what they do," Stu said.

Bingo.

"We're being forced to live a lie by the same kind of people that started Prohibition," Glenn said.

Prohibition failed for several reasons, most obviously because of gang violence and crime. However, there was another key component to its downfall.

"It was the elites who decided with a small group of people that it would be best for everyone and it would be best for our culture if they banned alcohol," Glenn said.

"But the American people didn't listen to them. If you couldn't buy it, you would make it. And it was just a game to get around the law. Because that's who the people were. And you don't have a right to stop me from drinking, that was the mentality. So we had two cultures. We had this culture that we said we lived because the government was forcing us, and then the culture that we actually lived."

When Prohibition didn't work, the government decided to poison alcohol, and 50,000 people died at the end of the Prohibition era because the United States government was poisoning alcohol.

"The problem is the wake that it leaves. The problem is if it goes on too long, the pendulum swings back too far. And if you're poisoning my beer, to hell with you. I'll poison your beer too," Glenn said.

"We're now entering the point where they will put poison in that to stop you from saying it. Because they believe it so much, they will poison, destroy, kill, run you out of business, whatever it is that they dream up in the future."

The silver lining?

"It always destroys itself," Glenn said. "The strong arm of the government saying, 'You will do these things. You won't do these things,' on television is done from the free market system. Prohibition is done because of the free market system and the people said, 'This is crazy. It's only making things much worse.' And this too will be done."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: All right. I just want to take you through -- I want to take you through the stream of consciousness that is the Glenn Beck Program here. Show you where we've been and where we're headed.

We had a guy who was a delegate for Donald Trump. He is a white supremacist. He was on CNN. We'll play the audio for you here in a little while. He was on CNN and he said things that didn't sound like a white supremacist, unless you knew who he was and then you were like, "Oh, yeah, he's clearly a white supremacist." But he was saying basically that the western culture is being displaced by those from Africa and the Middle East. And Europe is being destroyed. And he's right. And America is changing because we're being displaced. The white culture, as he called it -- I would call it the white Anglo-Saxon culture, the historic culture of Europe and America. And I want to come back to that.

But I jumped from that to television. The difference between broadcast television and what we're watching on -- you know, we're actually watching.

Broadcast television is going through the floor. And most people now -- I shouldn't say most people, a large number of people no longer watch broadcast television. And when they get off of broadcast television, they are going to things that are produced for Amazon or for Netflix. And if you do watch something in that format from broadcast television, I would say the only one that would make the exception would be something like Fox because it has a harder edge to it.

Now, I jump from there to Prohibition. And I want to finish the story on Prohibition. Then I'm going to go backwards and wrap it all up.

Wayne Wheeler, he was the guy who started the idea of Prohibition. He actually got the plank into the Constitution to prohibit all alcohol. He did it with the help of people like Carrie Nation, this little old lady with an axe. And she would go in, and she would terrorize bars. Most of this was done by women and the Temperance Society. And that was the idea that women were being beaten by their men when they come home. And that alcohol leads to all kind of damage. In their words at that time, all kinds of sin. So we got to ban alcohol.

Well, the women were just at the beginning of the women's suffrage movement. And the women had real clout. And they pushed this through.

The government decided to do it because it would be best thing -- because it's a progressive government now, Woodrow Wilson. It would be the best thing for the people to be able to have a temperance movement and to have Prohibition because it's good for the collective.

When it didn't work and caused all kinds of other problems, the government with Wayne Wheeler decided that they would poison the alcohol. And they would poison the alcohol because too many people are choosing -- choosing to drink is a choice for death anyway. That's what he said.

And so they would poison the alcohol. 50,000 people died at the end of the Prohibition era because the United States government was poisoning the alcohol.

Here's the interesting argument they had: You are violating your own laws. What? You mean by poisoning your own people? No. By not following the FDA guidelines and putting a label on it saying this contains poison.

So they were concerned, the progressives, that they had just started this FDA that would help people know what was in products and know if it was good or bad for you, and they weren't labeling while they were installing poison. That was their concern.

The guy who FDR said was the worst guy in the world and vilified all the way through the 1930s was Andrew Mellon. Remember? He was the Treasury Secretary. Treasury was the IRS. The IRS was the enforcer of the Untouchables. They were the enforcer of Prohibition.

When Mellon found out that we were poisoning alcohol, he exposed it and said it was unforgivable and an outrage. Yet, this was all forgotten by the progressives. And he was made into a villain because he was the architect of the Roaring Twenties and prosperity.

Now, I bring you to Prohibition because what was happening at Prohibition? The elites decided with a small group of people that it would be best for everyone and it would be best for our culture if they banned alcohol. But the American people didn't listen to them. They found their own ways. If you couldn't buy it, you would make it.

And if your friend was making it, you would just trade some food for it, and you would get it. And so everybody had a hidden closet. In their cupboard, they had, sitting behind everything else, a little bit of wine or a little bit of whisky or whatever. And generally speaking, you could get it, and people were still drinking it. Speakeasies were everywhere. And it was just a game to get around the law. Because that's who the people were. And they're going to drink. And you don't have a right to drink -- and you don't have a right to stop me from drinking, that was the mentality. So we had two cultures. We had this culture that we said we lived because the government was forcing us, and then the culture that we actually lived.

Now, let me bring you back a step to television. If you watch television now, network television, even the grittiest stuff is just not gritty. It's not real. Because of what Netflix and Amazon have been able to do, where they're making movie quality television and it's real, you're no longer watch -- you turn on broadcast television, and not only is it riddled with commercials, which drive me crazy, but the story lines feel fake. It's like watching Starsky & Hutch in comparison. It's just not real. It's either a homogenized utopian world. Or it's a homogenized dirty, gritty world. Where, when you watch Netflix, God forbid on broadcast television, you use the N-word, you call anybody a name.

You watch Boardwalk, they're using the N-word. They're using, you know, you dirty thieving wop. They're using -- they're using what people actually said back then.

It's the difference between watching Roots from 1974 or 1976. You watch that now. Oh, my gosh, is that homogenized. That's not what it was like. We were shocked by it.

That is a storybook, fairytale version of slavery today. That was like, "Oh, look at -- I mean, it wasn't that bad." If you watch it today. We were horrified in '76, but that was homogenized.

Now you see things on television, and you're like, "I bet that's what it was really like. I bet that's what it was really like." They're showing you what life was really like. And that's who we are. Just like Prohibition, the government said, "Network television is going to do this," and we're living this. That's why network television is dying. Because that's not who we are. We're more choices and more reality. Okay?

Let me take it one more step. When you watch the white power guy and you forget that he's a white supremacist and you listen to what he says. And could you play just the beginning of this, Pat?

You listen to just the beginning of what he says. Now, again, you have to forget -- you have to think like somebody who is just watching the news. The average person who doesn't know the news. Is kind of tuning in. All it says is Donald Trump delegate. It will change to Trump campaign selects a white supremacist as a California delegate. But it doesn't say he's necessarily the guy. He just says California delegate for Donald Trump.

And listen to what he says.

VOICE: Do you believe that the white race or the European white race is the superior race? Is that your view?

GLENN: Pretend you tune in here.

VOICE: I believe that western civilization is declining and dying out in every country around the world that has traditionally been white. Europe is being replaced by immigrants from Africa. America is the same thing is happening here -- happening here. And so I believe that we need to be aware of this precipitous decline in the white race. And I think it's good for people to be proud of your heritage, whatever heritage that might be. But particularly for white people because the whites now are so afraid to be proud of their heritage because they're called bad names if they are.

GLENN: Stop. That's the key. White people are afraid to speak out about their own culture because they'll be called names if they were.

We're living a lie. And we're being forced to live a lie by the same kind of people that started Prohibition and said, "We have to acquiesce and do exactly what the government tells us on television." But in the end, it doesn't work. In the end, it doesn't work.

We're being told, "You can't be -- you must be PC, and you can't say these things." But we might be living that life on the outside, but on the inside of our home, look what we're watching. Look what we're consuming. Look how we talk to each other.

We just don't say these things outside of our circle of friends because we're afraid of being punished for who we've always been. And that is decent people who understand. I don't have a problem with other races. I don't have a problem with other races. I watch Boardwalk and I think, "Look how far we've come. My gosh, can you imagine living like that? How did that happen?" But we got through it. And we're not like that anymore. And we know we're not like that. But we're expected to feel bad. We're expected to take it on the chin for something -- I didn't have anything to do with the 1920s. I don't have anything to do with the 1960s. I didn't have anything to do with the 1860s.

And, yes, those grievances happened and we need to be sympathetic to that and we need to make sure that we guard ourselves. But good God, can we take a moment and look at how great the western culture in America is not Anglo-Saxon, started as Anglo-Saxon. Started as Christian. And look what it produced.

Now, look at all the roots that people that came in from Russia, from Germany, from Africa, from England, from Ireland, and look what they brought to us. From Mexico. Look at thousand they've enriched. But they did one thing. They wanted to be Americans. They wanted to be part of this special culture.

We're being told now there is no special culture. And we're being told in the same way we were being told by prohibitionists. It's best for you not to live that way. And we didn't agree with it. But they imposed it on us. So we lived it anyway.

We're now entering the point where they will put poison in that to stop you from saying it. Because they believe it so much, they will poison, destroy, kill, run out of business, whatever it is that they dream up in the future.

They will -- right now, they're just driving you out of society if you stand up. It always ends with somebody -- I always joke, with a bullet in the head. It always ends with somebody poisoning your beer. That's the way it ends before it destroys itself.

It always destroys itself. The strong arm of the government saying, "You will do these things. You won't do these things," on television, is done from the free market system. Prohibition is done because of the free market system and the people said, "This is crazy. It's only making things much worse." And this too will be done.

The problem is the wake that it leaves. The problem is if it goes on too long, the pendulum swings back too far. And if you're poisoning my beer, to hell with you. I'll poison your beer too.

JEFFY: And then I'll poison your water.

GLENN: Right. And that's what -- and that's what this guy -- makes this guy frightening. Because people are living a lie. They know it. They're tired of it. This is why Donald Trump is connecting. You will dismiss what he says about the Negro race, just like people dismissed what Hitler was saying about the Jews at the beginning.

Eh, he doesn't believe all that stuff. And that's crazy. Nobody goes for that stuff. But he's right about this. He's right about this. We are afraid to say -- be proud of our own culture.

So we are so hungry for somebody to say that, that we dismiss all of the other things that go along with that, from that carrier of that message. This is the warning that all cultures get at this point. And if you dismiss the other things those messengers bring with them, you do so at your own peril.

Featured Image: Prohibition era photo

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.