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

The Times Have Changed: Glenn Finds Common Ground With 'The New York Times'

October 25, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Glenn recently had the opportunity to sit down with the editorial board of The New York Times for an enlightening conversation.

"So I don't want to quote anything that they said or take anything and make them look one way or another," Glenn told radio listeners Tuesday. "I will tell you that the thrust of the conversation was, who is your audience? Who are the people of the Tea Party, and are those people the same people that are supporting Donald Trump? And what happened if they are?"

RELATED: The GOP Must Do Something About the Conservative Media Industrial Complex if It Wants to Survive

From Glenn's perspective, those he met with appeared to have a keen and genuine interest in understanding what was happening in the country, particularly on the right. Could this signal a step toward bridging the divide and bringing people together?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• How did Glenn describe members of the Tea Party?

• Did Glenn adequately express the frustration felt by conservative Americans?

• Had the editorial board ever heard the truth about conservative Tea Party patriots?

• Did Glenn kiss a frog or a toad?

• What would make conservatives lose their credibility?

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

GLENN: I met with a New York Times editorial board yesterday, and it was all on background. So I don't want to quote anything that they said or -- or -- or take anything and -- and make them look one way or another.

I will tell you that the -- the thrust of the conversation was, who -- who are -- who is your audience? Who -- who are the people of the Tea Party, and are those people -- are those people the same people that are supporting Donald Trump? And what happened if they are?

To be able to sit with all of the editors of the New York Times and say, "Look, here's what happened: The press mocked, belittled, called them racist, called them dangerous, called them names, when these were families who came so far out of their comfort zone because they actually believed in something."

These aren't Marxists. These aren't revolutionaries in college. These are the people who just put their face in a book during college and did it and didn't get involved in any of that stuff. Have never done any of that their entire life. Have lived a law-abiding quiet life.

And then they saw in justice, they saw things that they thought were wrong. And the press immediately said they were dangerous. And then, riding in on a white horse, to their rescue was -- who? The G.O.P. And Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Come. You are such great friends. We needed you. And we then had a historic election for the G.O.P. and sent Tea Party people there. And those very people in the establishment turned those people against us.

And nothing changed. And then Mitt Romney, in 2012. And it was between 2010 and a week after the election of 2012 that everybody who was part of that movement said, "There's no way to win. Nothing is going to change. We've been defeated. There's nothing we can do."

And then a new man rode into town, who said, "I'm your defender. I'll crush them." And what he was promising or what his record was, wasn't as important as finally getting somebody to stand up who will refuse to sit down and will burn the whole damn thing down because the whole thing is corrupt. That's what happened.

It has nothing to do with racism or anything else. That's a subset.

That's not who these people are. They're tired, and they're frustrated. And they've looked for someone who can finally tell people like you, "Shut up. That's not who we are."

I don't think those people had heard that before.

PAT: How did they respond to that?

GLENN: They were amazing. They were amazing. And I don't --

PAT: It really sunk in, you think?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. For some. I do. There were 19 people in the room. I don't know. I didn't get a chance to talk to them. But I will tell you that it was not what I expected.

And, you know, people were blasting me on Facebook saying, "You know, you just went to bash Trump." No. Not really. Uh-uh. They weren't really that interested in Donald Trump. They were interested in who you are.

Now, I think, personally -- nothing to base this on, but I think personally, they know that the world is changing. They see trouble on the horizon, and like all of us, they may be saying now, "Gosh, it's a different world. It's a different game, make we should reexamine everything we're doing.

I don't know that. But that's the feeling I got. And here's why -- here's one of the reasons why I said yes to going up and meeting with them.

When I was at RedState this summer, somebody from the New York Times -- I didn't know they were from the New York Times, somebody in the press gaggle asked two questions. I don't even remember what they were. But they were thoughtful. They were really thoughtful questions. And I answered those questions.

And I wondered where she was from. And I thought she was from a -- a right side organization. And they were very smart questions. And she came up to me afterwards and asked a couple of other questions. I said, "Who are you with?" She said, "The New York Times." I said, "The New York Times?" She said, "Yes. We're trying to understand what's happening." Now, she's a documentary filmmaker. So we spent some time talking off the record. Her family is from, I think, Louisiana or Arkansas. They're Republicans. I think they're Trump supporters.

She's not. But she wasn't virulent either way. She was just like, "You know, I don't know. I'm not a Trump supporter, but my family is." She understood the center of the country, like no one else I've met in media.

And she said, "Would you be a part of this short documentary?" And I said, "I think so. But I don't know how it's going to be edited."

PAT: That was the problem, isn't it?

GLENN: Yeah, no, it is. But it was edited. And it was fair. It was fair. It was like eight minutes. But it was very fair.

And represented our side very well.

Yesterday, after it was all over, I was talking to her producer and somebody else from the New York Times, and they said, "Thank you for being a part of that." And I said, "I have to tell you, I was really skeptical." And they said, "We are really trying to understand. We're trying -- we don't want to be flippant on things." I said, "Oh, I know that feeling. Yes."

"We're really trying to understand." And they said, "The best thing about that is that -- now, this is key.

Said, "Did you read any of the comments underneath that when it first went out?"

And I said, "No."

And she said, "It was really good." She said, "So many of your people said, I can't believe this is the New York Times." And she said, "And so many of the New York Times people said, I can't believe there are conservatives like this. I didn't know they existed."

That is critical.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: If we're going to heal the country, that's critical.

Now, whether the New York Times or anybody else continues this the day after the election, I'm assuming I just kissed a frog. I'm assuming I just kissed a toad, hoping that they would be a princess. And they're not going to be a princess. That's how I have to go into this.

Anything that you get on the other side where you go, "Oh, my gosh. Look at that. It's tiny movement." Is a blessing. But we have to start doing that. We have to start looking for anybody who is actually willing to stand. And what I recommended to the New York Times -- I recommended, first of all, that Hillary Clinton, if she was serious about bringing the country together, that she said, "I'm not -- at this point in the country's history, I'm not going to replace a Scalia with a Ginsburg. I'm going to replace a Scalia with Mike Lee. A conservative constitutionalist with a conservative constitution."

PAT: She won't do that. But even if she did, a moderate --

GLENN: To be able to say that, in the New York Times and explain the thinking behind it --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- I thought was important.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I said, "If she's serious, then de-weaponize the IRS." That, she could do. It was wrong when Nixon did it. I don't want to get into the past. But it's wrong now.

De-weaponize the IRS. Her side -- I said, "The only way that it will make any difference is if she hurts her own self with her side. If her side isn't screaming, 'What are you doing,' it won't mean anything to the left -- to the right. They won't believe it."

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And even if she does it, they'll still say, "There's a catch." But it will come in a long-term pattern. Did that really do what she said it would do? And if it doesn't, it makes it worse.

But the reason why I came up with this, you know, Watergate begat Travelgate is because I said the other thing is -- and it won't mean anything coming from people on our side. What means something to the right -- to the left is us on the right standing up and saying, "Here's the infection point on our side. Here are the things we have to take care of." We can't say we're for morals and we don't hate women and then stand with a guy who says, "Come on. Tell me she hasn't been grabbed there a few times in the past." Holy cow. He actually said that yesterday.

We can't accept that. Forget about them. But we'll have no credibility with anyone. And the same thing with them.

I said, "What have you -- by ignoring, what has the left promised us now that she can get away with?" You have to take a hard line on corruption, no matter who wins. You have to take a hard line on corruption. And I don't know -- I don't know what their thinking was. And I wouldn't want to characterize it either way. But I have hope that they will see and say, "We do to have take a hard line." The times have changed.

Featured Image: People walk past The New York Times building on October 1, 2014 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

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.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!