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

Glenn: For the First Time, I Heard Ted Cruz Calculate

September 26, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Following his interview with Senator Ted Cruz, Glenn shared his impression of the exchange on his radio program Monday.

"For the very first time, I heard Ted Cruz calculate. And when that happened, the whole thing fell apart for me," he said.

Glenn blamed himself for the inevitable letdown.

"It's my fault," Glenn said. "It's my fault for believing that men can actually be George Washington."

RELATED: Glenn Grills Ted Cruz on What It Means to ‘Vote Your Conscience’

He went on to share an idea that would sound "outrageous" to some.

"I am not here to fight for the saving of America. I am not here to fight for the saving of this land. I am not here to save the system that we have built. I am here and you are here --- we all are here --- for this time to save the idea of America," Glenn said.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these principled questions:

• What is the idea of America?

• What reason should Senator Cruz have given for his decision?

• Should Glenn have supported Marco Rubio?

• Will the two major parties destroy the idea of America?

• Would Glenn still vote for Senator Cruz?

• Has the Republican Party become like PETA?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: For the first time -- and I'm sorry if that was too contentious for people.

STU: It's what we should do, right?

GLENN: And I will tell you, that's not what I expected, but there was something in there. And I'm not going to go into it. There is something there, where I have private conversations with people. And I know private -- I know what was said, and I know -- I know the story. And for the very first time, I heard Ted Cruz calculate. And when that happened, the whole thing fell apart for me. And it's my fault. It's my fault for believing that men can actually be George Washington. It's my fault.

I should have said, "You know who can win? You know who could beat Hillary Clinton? Marco Rubio. And I disagree with him on the Gang of Eight, and there's about 80 percent that I do agree with him on. And he's kind of a politician, but he's a different kind of politician: He's a young politician. He's a Hispanic. He can win. Let's go for it!" Instead, I said, "Let's find a truly honorable man." And that will always let you down. It will always let you down.

STU: Yes. I kept thinking this weekend of like, you know, we keep -- there's a lesson that we're supposed to learn, I believe a pretty important person once talked about it, in that: Don't put your faith in man. That's not the right place.

GLENN: It's not the place. It's not the place.

PAT: Well, and but we thought we were putting our faith in the principles that he held.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

PAT: And -- and -- because he led us to believe -- and he did it through his work, that he was going to be a man of his principle. Because he was.

GLENN: Here's how he could have -- here's how he could have addressed this today.

PAT: "You know what, guys, I caved. I need donors. They all left. I caved." Just tell the truth.

GLENN: Yes. Yeah. "Guys, here's the thing: I said -- he's reframing what he did in Cleveland.

PAT: Yeah, you can't say what you're saying now and what you said in Cleveland are the same thing.

GLENN: They're not.

PAT: Everybody knows they're not.

GLENN: One is, vote for Donald Trump. And one is, vote for your conscience. There's a clear difference.

PAT: Big time.

GLENN: But he's recasting that now.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And, yes, was he trying to force Donald Trump and the G.O.P. to come closer? Yeah, I think he was.

PAT: Even if that's what he was trying to do, what have they done to get closer? Nothing! Nothing.

GLENN: So he said -- so he could have come on and said --

PAT: I don't buy it.

GLENN: -- "Look, guys, here's the thing: My supporters are yelling at me." And I know that, because so are mine.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: My donors, who were all in with the G.O.P., they're all saying, "I'll never fund you -- I won't fund you for the Senate. I won't fund you for the run in 2020." And I have to make a decision. So the question is: Do I completely shut myself out of this game, or do I play the game as much as I possibly can? Look, there's nobody that has held out longer than me, he should have said.

STU: It wouldn't be accurate, but it would be close to that.

GLENN: It wouldn't be accurate, yes. They're down to 12.

You know, if you count us and Ben Shapiro and everybody else, they're down to 12.

STU: Kasich is a candidate --

GLENN: Yes. Kasich!

PAT: Ben Sasse.

GLENN: Ben Sasse.

STU: Ben Sasse. Mike Lee. And when's the last time anyone asked Ben Sasse about this? He was able to avoid it completely because he was honest and said what he believed early on.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So people stopped bugging him about it.

GLENN: Yes. So, anyway -- and people would have stopped bugging him about this.

So, anyway, if he would have just come on and said that, I would have had a lot easier time. But to become the politician --

STU: Right.

GLENN: -- is -- is disappointing. Really disappointing.

STU: Well, two things --

GLENN: But I don't want to get into a situation to where -- I think Ted Cruz is still a good man. I I think he's a good man. I do think he prayed on this. And I can't argue with him. I think everybody's back is up against the wall. And so I'm not going to condemn him. He is, still, I believe, a good man. He is just a politician, first. I've never put him into the category of politician, and that's my fault. He is a politician.

STU: Right. And that's not a condemnation of him, it's a condemnation of our decision-making process, I suppose.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: And so two quick things, positive on Cruz: Number one, he's got the balls to come in here and face this.

GLENN: Not a lot of people would do that.

STU: Not a lot of people would do that.

Number two: He'll still be one of the best senators in the Senate. You know, we had this same sort of issue with Rand Paul when he endorsed Mitch McConnell.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And we gave him a really hard time about that, and it's forever changed the general way we think about him.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: He's a good senator. He's right on almost everything --

GLENN: And I still support him. I'd still vote for him.

STU: I still support him. Right.

GLENN: But I know who he is.

STU: I don't separate him from the pack. He's just a good, quality conservative senator with good Libertarian leanings. And he's usually right. And that's what I'll think about Ted Cruz in the future.

GLENN: Yes, yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: He's Rand Paul, and that's okay. He's still going to be one of the best senators.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: But this idea that now he's bringing to us the binary choice argument --

PAT: I hate that.

STU: -- is so --

PAT: That drove me nuts more than just about anything in that conversation.

STU: Oh, just about anything. It's so ridiculous.

PAT: It's a binary choice? No, I thought it was vote your conscience.

STU: Conscience and principles.

PAT: Those are mutually exclusive. I'm sorry.

STU: And if you haven't heard the binary choice argument before --

GLENN: Everybody has.

STU: Well, but just to review.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Basically, Hillary Clinton is going to be bad on 100 percent of the things. We know she's a liberal and she's nuts. On the other side, you're going to have someone who might be good on some things. Maybe he's at least saying he's for a flat tax and the IRS --

PAT: And he gives us no indication to think he will be better on anything.

STU: Well, let me finish. Maybe he's better for more localized education. Maybe he's better on campaign reform term limits. Maybe he's better on foreign policy that's a little bit more sensible. Maybe he's better on monetary policy. You know, better on the fed. Maybe he would give us better Supreme Court justices.

What I just described to you is straight off the David Duke website. That is his platform. Those things are his platform. So if we had a binary choice between David Duke -- who would be better than taxes than Hillary Clinton -- he would be better on localized education than Hillary Clinton. Are we to cross the line and vote for David Duke because, "Well, he's better on X, Y, and Z?" And to me, that's why it's not a binary choice.

GLENN: Binary choices as we said, last hour, lead you to a kakistocracy.

STU: Kakistocracy.

GLENN: Say it.

STU: No.

GLENN: You can't, can you? Nobody can.

STU: The point is --

GLENN: But it is a government run by the worst people of society. Because everybody keeps saying, "Well, it's the lesser of two evils." And eventually you get down to Pol Pot or Mao.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I mean, eventually you get there.

Now, we're not anywhere close to that.

STU: Right. And obviously --

GLENN: But you are on that road.

STU: Obviously, Donald Trump is not as bad as David Duke.

GLENN: No.

STU: But the point is, there has to be a line of principle. And obviously Cruz is saying here that Trump doesn't violate that line. Because I think every mainstream Trump supporter would say, "I'm not going to vote for David Duke in that scenario."

GLENN: Correct.

STU: However, every argument they make about Donald Trump could be applied to David Duke.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You could get anyone that isn't Hillary Clinton, you could apply these arguments to.

GLENN: See, this is the problem: The problem is we have divided ourselves in teams, and it doesn't matter if your team is inflating the ball or not. If the other side is inflating the ball, you cry bloody murder. If your side is inflating the ball, it doesn't matter. That's the problem. We're all wearing jerseys, it doesn't matter what is happening anymore. I'm for my team.

This is -- this is exactly what our Founders warned us about. George Washington was clear. Thomas Jefferson was clear. Adams was clear. They were all clear!

This is the end of the republic if you just play teams. And that's the problem. We're playing teams.

Look, I want you to listen very carefully to me because this is going to sound pretty outrageous: I am not here to fight for the -- for the saving of America. I am not here to fight for the saving of this land. I am not here to save the -- the -- the -- the -- the system that we have built. I am here and you are here -- we all are here for this time to save the idea of America.

America is no more than that: an idea, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. And among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That you have charge over your own life and you only answer to God, and God gives you those rights, and you give some of those rights to the government for protection. And the minute that that government begins to infringe on any of those rights, it is not just your -- not just your willingness, it is your duty to overthrow anyone who would take those rights away.

Those rights are what have us say, "I can do this. I can build a better mousetrap. I could be president. I could build a rocket and go to Mars. I can be left alone. I can participate. I can not participate." It's an idea that had never, ever happened before.

And right now, what we are arguing about is the -- is the destruction of our banking system. The destruction of our two-party system. The destruction of our capital. The destruction of law and order, whatever the hell that even means anymore. The destruction of our culture. The destruction of our churches, whatever the hell that means anymore.

I don't care if my children are more rich or less rich than me. I don't care. I don't care.

What I do care is that my children are free to be able to chart their own course, free to be able to work or not work and starve. My children have a right to worship in the way they see fit and to move as their conscience tells them to move.

Right now, we have become PETA. Shame on all of us. Why not -- just if you won't vote for Hillary our you won't vote for Trump, why not just cover me in a bucket of blood? Why not just shame me in the public square? Why not run them out of business? They're climate deniers!

There is no difference between the two teams anymore. Oh, sure, one's for a little lower taxes. One is the for border, one is not. One is for international rule, one is for national rule.

Which one is for the idea that all men are created equal, that all men have a right to pursue their own happiness and make their own goddamn decision? Which one? Which one?

I contend neither of them. And so we will just soak each other in buckets of blood. We'll be a happy little bumper sticker community that shames one another into making sure you walk in goose-step with all the other Hillary supporters or walk in goose-step with all the other Trump supporters. Because she's going to mean the destruction of America. No, no, says the Hillary supporter, you must vote for us because he means the destruction of America.

I contend they both mean the destruction of the idea.

[break]

GLENN: So I apologize for my outburst in language. I don't apologize for the thoughts behind it. But sometimes, when you're doing four hours a day live, that's what happens. Welcome to the program. Welcome to real life.

When we come back, next hour, the debates.

STU: Oh, good.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.