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

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?