Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

CNN Defuses Clinton's Response After Weekend Terror Attacks

September 19, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

In the wake of this weekend's terror attacks, both major presidential candidates made comments. Naturally, the MSM couldn't wait to compare their responses.

Here's what the candidates said:

Clinton: "I have been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We have been in touch with various officials, including the mayor's office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I will have more to say about it when we have some facts."

Trump: "Just before I got off the plane, a bomb went off in New York and nobody knows exactly what's going on."

While both candidates used a variation of the word "bomb," Trump was lambasted while Hillary was praised for showing reserve. CNN reported that "Trump immediately said a bomb went off while Clinton called for support of first responders and letting the investigation unfold.

CNN went the extra mile by removing from audio the first sentence in Hillary's statement that used the word "bombings."

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

You know, I will tell you that CNN played a really interesting game over the weekend. Donald Trump came out right away and said it was a bombing. You know, the bombing in New York, instead of an explosion.

And the press immediately said, "Oh, what do you mean bombing? Bombing, you can't say bombing."

PAT: Controversy. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. Stupid controversy. But what happened was Hillary Clinton was asked about Donald Trump's comments. How do you have this? You have the CNN or do you have the raw?

PAT: I have the raw.

GLENN: Okay. So I want you to hear this in its entirety. This is the raw comments Hillary Clinton made on her plane at about a quarter to midnight on Saturday.

HILLARY: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.

Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders. Also, to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We've been in touch with various officials, including the mayor's office in New York to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I'll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts.

VOICE: Secretary Clinton, do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump immediately upon taking the statement tonight called the explosion in New York a "bomb"?

GLENN: Okay. Stop. First question: Do you have any comment that Donald Trump called this a "bomb"?

STU: It's unbelievable.

PAT: By the way, 30 seconds after she called it "bombings."

STU: Bombings.

PAT: She did use the -ing though -- -ings. So...

GLENN: Yes. Okay. So you have that. Now, let me show you what CNN cut out.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Stop it when -- go ahead.

PAT: Okay.

HILLARY: I've been briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey and the attack in Minnesota.

GLENN: Stop. That's what they edited out.

(laughter)

GLENN: But there's -- what?

PAT: So they took out the fact that she called them "bombings."

GLENN: They took out the fact that she called them "bombings."

PAT: And then she can bash Trump for calling them "bombings."

GLENN: Right.

JEFFY: Huh.

STU: Now, how is that the fascinating part of this story?

GLENN: Well, the other fascinating part of the story is that she also said we have to support our first responders, you know, the woman who is standing with Black Lives Matter.

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Meeting with the heads of Black Lives Matter. That's different than saying, "Hey -- because I know what's coming my way -- hey, let's listen to the people, not the leaders. We know what the leaders want. We disagree with the leaders. But the people who might be caught up in it, let's listen to them."

She's meeting with the leaders of Black Lives Matter. We know what they want. Death to the police.

PAT: The leaders -- and Marxism.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: Communism. Their whole manifesto is about that.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: Yes. I mean, it is straight-out communist.

GLENN: So what is your interesting part of this?

STU: Well, I mean, first of all, it's a terrorist -- ongoing terrorist event. And what does the news do but take it -- I mean, we just addressed this. It's not the most important thing here, the election results. But, again, to try to capture Donald Trump in some misstatement, they'd rather focus on that than focus on the actual attack.

GLENN: They have to. They have to.

STU: No, they don't. I promise they don't.

GLENN: No, no. No, no. And I don't mean it that way. I mean, they are playing for a team. So they have to.

STU: Yeah, I guess.

GLENN: You know, if we're -- by the way, anybody who thinks we're for Clinton, we wouldn't be bringing this up if we were playing for a team. We will do the same thing to Donald Trump that we'll do to her. When they're wrong, we'll point it out.

STU: What a crazy new approach to radio.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Wow, we're inventing a whole new format here.

GLENN: I know. They have to do this because they're playing for a team, and terror is going to work to Donald Trump's strange.

STU: You're right. So as a team member, they go and try to say, "Well, this is an example of Donald Trump being erratic. This is him acting without information. What a crazy person this guy is." Instead of talking about the fact that -- I mean, this is -- you know, terrorism in and of itself shouldn't help one or the other candidates. It's about how they react to it. And, you know, the idea that one of the main divisions in this election has been, "Should we let more people into the country from terrorism-ridden areas, like, I don't know, Afghanistan?" And Trump's position the entire time -- well, the entire time, Trump's position has covered people who would be born in areas such as Afghanistan. We all know it's morphed a few times. But the entire time, it would restrict immigration from those areas.

So I mean it's a pretty clear example of something that should work in Trump's favor. And you see the way the media is handling it. It's ridiculous.

GLENN: Oh, it's going to help Trump, the way the media is handling it. Because look, everybody knows -- everybody knows -- left and right, everybody knows, not all Muslims are terrorist. But almost all Muslims are terrorist. Currently, the way -- what we're fighting right now. That doesn't mean that there's not a terrorist from time to time at an abortion clinic that has been a Christian. Although, give me the number of those, Stu.

STU: Off the top of my head, I don't remember. But I think --

PAT: I think the number this year is zero.

STU: This year, it's zero.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Yeah. But since Roe vs. Wade, it's like six.

PAT: Yeah, literally.

GLENN: Yeah. So -- so occasionally, there are others that are terrorist. But it is wildly rare in comparison to what we're dealing with, coming from the Muslim community. And everybody knows that. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But almost all terrorists are Muslim currently. And to, A -- for the media to continue to deny that things are linked -- ISIS came out with the mall and immediately claimed responsibility for that. This is a soldier for ISIS.

We won't claim that it's even terror-related. Well, they're claiming it. And every time this happens -- and this is why this hurts Hillary Clinton. If they're trying to help, they're hurting her.

You know, fine with me. Do what you want. But the American people are not with the press. The American people both left and right know, "The country is in trouble because we are denying reality."

STU: Right. Because what did de Blasio call it? An intentional incident. Not terrorism, but an intentional incident, which is really a scary way to --

PAT: An intentional incident.

STU: Yes. It was intentional. It was an incident. I will give him both of those things.

GLENN: And I contend that nobody on the left -- very few on the left, except the political players and the media, actually say those kinds of things, believe those kinds of things. They know how bad ISIS is. They know we have terrorists in our own country. They know that not all mosques are bad, but there are bad mosques. Not all Muslims are bad, but there are bad Muslims. They know these things. And to continually deny them is what takes common sense people and pushes them over to somebody who will say, "Ban all Muslims."

PAT: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Well, no. No, that's not a good idea either. But if you have to choose between the two, most people will start to go, "You know what -- because they're afraid. And there's nobody that knows better than progressives what fear does.

STU: If there's a book written about that, that would be interesting.

GLENN: Oh, man. One that would show the lies that are based in fear.

STU: Right. Well, focusing on the people who make the lies, like, you know, the Liars.

PAT: Too bad there's nothing like that. Nobody would ever --

GLENN: No, wait. Guys, I wrote one. It's called Liars.

STU: Oh, really?

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Wow.

PAT: What a happy coincidence.

JEFFY: What, like 100 years ago?

GLENN: It is. It's amazing. It's almost like that was thought out in advance.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton arrives to board her plane at Tampa International Airport September 6, 2016 in Tampa, Florida. (Photo Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

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.