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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Obama Demands Black Voters Cement His Fantastic Legacy by Voting

September 19, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Since Obama delivered so much to the black community during his eight years as president --- you know, things like racial harmony, soaring employment and superior standards of living --- it's only fitting he's owed. Big time. And it's time to pay the piper.

"I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good sendoff, go vote," Obama said recently to a predominately black audience of Capitol Hill lawmakers and guests.

If anyone should be insulted it's black voters.

RELATED: Tavis Smiley: I Am Tired Of Black Voters Being Taken For Granted By One Party

"I'd consider it a personal insult --- politics is personal. This is the problem with our country. Everything is personal. No. That has nothing to do with you. I don't know if you know this, Barack, but you're not running. And even if you were running, just because I don't vote for you doesn't mean it's a personal insult," Glenn said.

If Obama had actually done anything other than hurt the black community, there would be no plea to make. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Now, let's have this conversation: Low black voter turnout would be a personal insult.

This is Barack Obama: I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy if this community lets down its guard and fails to activity itself this election. You want me to give -- you want to give me a good sendoff, go vote.

Wow. Let's -- let's talk about this here for a second.

JEFFY: Just calling out the action to vote, right?

GLENN: Yeah, uh-huh. So let's talk about this.

First of all, you want to give me a good sendoff -- why should people in the black community give him a good sendoff?

PAT: He's done nothing for them.

GLENN: I mean, I think the exact opposite.

PAT: Yeah, he's hurt --

STU: Well, he did heal all the racial wounds. That pretty much seems to be over, right? You know, I think we're all set.

GLENN: Why should anyone give him a good sendoff?

PAT: He seriously set back race relations in this country 40 years, easily. Fifty years.

GLENN: Easily. Easily.

PAT: We're back in the early '60s now, I think race-wise.

GLENN: And beyond that, just look at unemployment.

PAT: Unemployment is terrible.

GLENN: Unemployment numbers are, with the youth, in 50, 60 percent.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you look at the standard of living, it's gone down. If you look at the number of poor, it's gone up.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What has he done? What has he done? Now, that's the first thing.

The second: I'd consider it a personal insult -- politics is personal. This is the problem with our country. Everything is personal. No. That has nothing to do with you. I don't know if you know this, Barack, but you're not running.

And even if you were running, just because I don't vote for you doesn't mean it's a personal insult.

PAT: And the third thing in that, he's expecting all blacks to vote en masse --

GLENN: In a bloc --

PAT: In a bloc, for a certain party.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Now, why would they?

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Why would they?

GLENN: Why -- I want you to -- if anybody can defend this, I'd love to hear from you.

How can you possibly defend saying to a group of people, "You owe it to us. You have to vote, or it will be a personal insult to me. It will be bad." How could you possibly not vote for this candidate? Even the guy who has done it has done nothing for them. Even though the guy who is going to replace him, they don't necessarily like. They're not voting for her --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- they're not going out and voting because they don't believe in her.

STU: But do it anyway because it will be a personal insult to me if you don't.

GLENN: Right. And wrong. In fact, he goes on to say: Good sendoff, you got to vote for me -- I think he -- no, I guess that's it. It was somebody else that said something.

Others are taking it a step further and saying, "You know, this is -- this is detrimental to the country if you just don't follow in the bloc?"

STU: I mean, I would be insulted as a voter if they even asked that of me. If you -- you're asking me to vote for a candidate because you will be -- you will be insulted if I don't? You will be -- you think your legacy will be hurt if I don't do that? I mean, that's offensive to even ask. Right?

That's not how you're supposed to vote.

GLENN: Check your brain at the door.

PAT: Especially when his record is so terrible with the black community. They've gone backward, not just the race relations in this country have gone backwards, but so has -- so has the black community because economically they're worse off. Job-wise, they're worse off. The families are worse off. The murder rate, worse off. All of it, it's worse.

GLENN: Again, tell me -- tell me what she has done. What she had done. Not him. I can tell you what he's done.

PAT: For the black community?

GLENN: Tell me what she's done. Because it's about her.

PAT: I can't think of what she's done for anybody.

GLENN: Right. I could look at the party and say, "What has the party done for the black community ever? What has the party done to actually help the black community?"

It wasn't civil rights because that was -- those were the Republicans.

PAT: That was by the Republicans.

GLENN: So even with their own argument, the Republicans became bad after the civil rights movement. So it wasn't civil rights. So what has the Democratic Party done for the black man? What has it done? What has Barack Obama and what has Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton done for the black family?

STU: Well, if they had done something, his argument wouldn't be, you're going to hurt my feelings if you don't vote for Hillary.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It would be, "Hey, look at all these incredible accomplishments. You should vote for those." Instead, it's, "Well, look -- I mean, he is saying those things as well. But you wouldn't need this personal plea if the argument were obvious. If it was, wow, we've changed the lives of African-Americans and made things so much better. That would be an easy argument to sell to people.

PAT: Yeah, it would.

STU: You wouldn't need to say, you'll hurt my feelings if you don't cast this vote.

PAT: If they had actually helped.

STU: Right. That's an easier path. Right?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I mean, maybe that's not easier. That's probably harder, but it's a more direct path.

GLENN: So if the Democratic Party had done some things and they -- and they need to go and said, "Hey, we've done some things for you." And even though you really don't like Hillary Clinton because of her husband's record and everything else, you really don't like her, you wouldn't be offend if they said, "It's not going to hurt my personal feelings, but you need to vote for her because of the Democrats."

STU: Because the Democrats?

GLENN: Right. They're Democrats, and these guys are Republicans, and these guys are evil.

STU: It seems like a terrible way to vote, right? I mean, you don't do that. You vote -- oh, no, I was about to say something really bad. I was about to say, "You vote your conscience."

PAT: Oh, my.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry to offend the audience. I didn't mean to go there.

PAT: You hatemonger.

STU: But I will say this, if African-American voters don't vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's a person that they don't like or agree with on things: Well, they own it. I will say that, they own it. Let's say it again: They own it, like it's a really important intellectual point. They own it.

PAT: Stu, will you hold them personally --

STU: I will hold them personally responsible. They own it. Wait. Let me say it 13 more times.

PAT: Now, if you tell me you're a mauve belt or something --

STU: No, I would never go that far.

PAT: -- even after that because then I will really be scared, and so will they.

GLENN: All right. All right.

STU: It's an interesting point though. Is it not the exact same argument? How can you criticize Obama and what he's saying today if you're doing the exact same thing to other voters?

PAT: I don't know. I don't know what you're saying. All I'm saying --

STU: I will be personally -- I will feel --

GLENN: All right. We got it. I got it.

STU: I will hold you personally -- "personally" is the word in both cases. This is getting even more and more interesting.

PAT: It is. It is.

STU: Well, I will say that they own it. Hey, guys, they own it.

GLENN: Okay. We got it. We got it.

STU: Hold on. Let me say it again. They own it. They own it. They own it.

GLENN: Got it. Thank you. Thank you.

Featured Image: U.S. President Barack Obama holds a press conference about the recent bombings in the New York region at the Lotte New York Palace Hotel on September 19, 2016 in New York City. On the evening of September 17, 2016, a bomb placed in a dumpster exploded in lower Manhattan injuring at least 29 people. (Photo by Anthony Behar-Pool/Getty Images)

The double standard behind the White House outrage

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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.