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

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

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.