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

What America Would Look Like if Hillary Had Won the Election

December 27, 2016
Staff

WRITER

With Glenn on vacation, entrepreneur and former police officer John Cardillo filled in on The Glenn Beck Program Tuesday. Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter joined him to discuss what America might look like if Hillary Clinton had won the election.

"Every day I wake up giggling and smiling at the utter rejection and humiliation of Hillary Clinton, and with a sense of exhilaration at the giant bullet America dodged," Schlichter said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

JOHN: Now, I don't know if you're like me, but one of the shows I really enjoy, one of the television shows I really enjoy -- it's actually on Amazon, I'll just call it Amazon on demand or Amazon digital streaming. Is The Man In the High Castle, which is a great show. Some people don't like it. I find it really interesting. I binge watch it. And if you don't know what it's about -- it's about -- if Germany and Japan had won World War II. Germany controls the eastern part of the United States. Their headquarters in New York City. The Nazis do. And the Japanese empire controls the west coast, with their headquarters in San Francisco. So I watched season two. And I think season two launched -- they released season two, December 16th. Well, three days after that, Kurt Schlichter, Townhall columnist, did a story that I call The Woman With the High Collar. And it was entitled The Terrifying Aftermath of Hillary's Election Victory. If Hillary Clinton -- what America would look like if Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election. And Kurt Schlichter joins me now to discuss -- you know, Kurt, you scared me with this. You know, Man In the High Castle is a little bit depressing. You wonder what might have been. Then three days later you put this in my face.

KURT: Well, you know, I'm always there for you, John.

JOHN: You are. You are.

So tell us a little bit about what America would look like if we had Madam Clinton of being inaugurated in three weeks.

KURT: I don't even like you saying that. I have a terrible cold right now, and you've made me feel worse.

Look, every day I wake up giggling and smiling at the utter rejection and humiliation of Hillary Clinton. And with a sense of exhilaration at the giant bullet America dodged because that -- we -- we -- we told that daughter (phonetic) and corrupt monster, go back to Chappaqua. Just think about what would have happened if she had won. First of all, I think we'd all be choking on her smugness. The smugness in the media. The smugness issuing from her, of just the -- the utter -- utter hate and contempt they'd express for the rest of us. We'd be written out of the game.

JOHN: Let me ask you, Kurt, do you think they would be preaching unity and reaching across the aisle and concessions and -- and we need the White House to understand that there's another half of America, or would they be saying? Elections have consequences, again, deal with it.

KURT: Let me think about the track record of the last eight years. Yeah, I'll go with option two.

JOHN: Yeah.

KURT: Can you imagine the stream of leftist monsters she would be appointing?

JOHN: Well, that's the thing.

KURT: Oh, climate change weirdos. Anti-DOJ people. Forget every investigating any corruption anymore.

JOHN: But the Supreme Court -- you're an attorney -- yeah, you're a trial attorney and you're a legal scholar, the Supreme Court, I argue, the Supreme Court would have been tipped from 25 to 35 years, depending on the age of somebody she appointed.

Because, look, if Trump say nominates a Ted Cruz, right? What is Cruz? 45 years old. He's a healthy guy. Cruz could conceivably sit on the court for 35 years.

KURT: Oh, I would love that.

JOHN: How terrifying is that if Hillary appointed a 45-year-old far left radical?

KURT: Look. Just think of what we would have. You know, discovering a constitutional requirement that we all, you know, chip in to pay for long-term abortions.

JOHN: Yeah.

KURT: How about the Second Amendment. Nope. How about the First Amendment?

JOHN: That would be gone.

KURT: Oh, well, there are exceptions now. Stuff like that.

JOHN: As an attorney, what do you think -- and you've been a great satirist of the political process. I'm speaking with Townhall columnist Kurt Schlichter, who is also a trial lawyer, and I should note, a retired colonel in the United States Army, served 27 years. You know, Kurt, what do you think that a left -- a Hillary Clinton-appointed Supreme Court, had she won, thank God she didn't -- what do you think the top three agenda items they would have gone after? Would have been. I think Second Amendment, First Amendment.

KURT: Yeah, Second Amendment definitely. First Amendment.

You have to understand, she keeps talking about Citizens United. Citizens United was a case brought to determine whether the government could criminally prosecute you for putting out a movie critical of -- wait for it -- Hillary Clinton.

Now, here's Hillary Clinton's argument. The government has the power, despite the First Amendment, to put you in jail if you put out a movie criticizing her. Let's roll that around in our heads for a minute.

JOHN: You know what's interesting, I never heard that on CNN.

KURT: No. You never heard that. I was on with some leftist on some show. And, you know, being a lawyer and having a legal background, I said, do you know what Citizens United was?

It's about money.

Well, let me ask you something: If Citizens United resolved in your favor, what do you think the appropriate jail sentence for someone putting a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, that Hillary Clinton like should be? And she gives me this blank stare. And I'm like, "You do know what Citizens United is about. You do know that the solicitor general of the United States went up and heard you before the United States Supreme Court that the government could ban a book."

JOHN: Right. But what people were told -- and you know this. You and I have discussed this on my show. People were told -- the American public was sold by the DNC's cohorts in the media, that Citizens United was all about big bad rich corporations run by Republican conservatives, being able to donate to political campaigns. That's what most Americans believe that citizens united is about. Prior to it, you could only make an individual contribution to a hard money campaign. Now corporations can do it.

They have no idea that it has anything to do with the First Amendment and production of media projects.

KURT: Well, you know, this is -- that they would allow the government to put people in jail for being critical of the government is not a flaw in the eyes of Hillary Clinton. That is a feature.

JOHN: Right.

KURT: Hillary Clinton is not a believer in freedom. She is not a believer in free expression. She is a leftist totalitarian who hates us.

JOHN: I'm concerned about one thing though. I think I lost some money here. I was going to surprise you here. It was a Christmas present. I bought you a plane ticket to New York with me, and we were going to walk through the woods, looking for Hillary together. I really thought you would enjoy that. But now I'm a little concerned that I might have missed the mark on that one.

(laughter)

KURT: Oh, I like how she's wandering through Whole Foods, taking selfies with random losers. People going, "I cried for so long, Hillary. Now I can't make love to my husband because Trump's won." And their husband is sitting there going, "Yes!"

JOHN: And she's walking through the woods like finding Bigfoot, that reality show. It's like people are out there with GPS and night vision, finding Hillary in the woods of Chappaqua. It is the most bizarre thing.

KURT: How about The Nightmare of Naked and Alone with Hillary. Ugh.

JOHN: Yes.

KURT: That's scarier than anything in Man In the High Castle.

JOHN: Yeah, survivor man, Chappaqua. You're out there with your little GoPro on your little tripod.

KURT: Can you imagine how horrifying it would be? Because this is a woman -- and, again, I have to say it, and I want to be very clear, she and her cohorts hate us. They don't dislike us. They don't find us opponents. They hate us and want to do things to harm us, simply because they can. There is no other reason -- for example, the giant cake baking thing has happened.

JOHN: Right. Right.

KURT: Other than just to rub our faces in their power. And what happens when you rub America's -- Americans' faces in something for long enough. You're a student of history. You're a New Yorker. You were a cop. How do Americans react when you push and push and push?

JOHN: Well, look, it's about power though. You nailed it, right?

Hillary Clinton has had power in some form for 40 years -- 30-some-odd years, right? She was the wife of the attorney general of Arkansas, in a state like Arkansas in the '80s. That's pretty powerful.

Then wife of the governor. That's really powerful. Then went to the White House, which is the ultimate power. I mean, remember that debacle back in the '90s when she mapped out that convoluted Rube Goldberg rendition of health care?

KURT: Oh, yeah.

JOHN: On that whiteboard. And the congressmen were all sitting there like dogs looking at a milk bone dog biscuit, like they were just utterly confused. What in the world is this woman talking about?

And then she kind of disappeared. And -- and -- but what's even worse is Hillary Clinton was Bill Clinton's liaison on the hill, who sold the most radical anti-gay agenda in history, right? Defense of Marriage Act. Freedom Restoration Act. Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And you didn't hear a word about that.

I mean, now, the reinvented Queen Hillary was the champion of gay rights. She sold Bill Clinton's crime bill on the hill. Look, I was a cop. I benefited. I got a new gun. We got new cars. But we also got these Draconian sentences. And we were locking guys up for dumb drug offenses. And our lieutenants were shaking their head, going, "This is the south Bronx, why are we doing this?" That was all Hillary Clinton. And it was always about power. The ability to impose the power of the Clinton regime.

KURT: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think it frankly would have torn this country apart. Imagine -- I just came back from Texas. Spent a few days there over Christmas with my wife's family. Texas is vibrant. The economy is moving.

JOHN: It's doing great.

KURT: It's doing great. Now, can you imagine when Hillary's EPA says no more fracking. No more oil drilling. We're going to leave it in the ground because of this global warming pagan nonsense.

JOHN: It's so ridiculous. That's what they're afraid of, Kurt. That's what they're afraid of. They're afraid of energy exploration. Because look at North Dakota.

Energy exploration is the quickest path to prosperity and job creation. Really in terms of US industry, it's the quickest path. You pull oil and natural gas out of the ground, you need thousands of bodies to get it to market. Progressives are terrified of that.

KURT: Well, and they can't take any of that power. They don't get the money. They don't get the power.

With these green -- this green nonsense -- the Solyndras, they can reward their friends. They can choose winners and losers. It's more power and more money for them. That's the common -- this is the common key. Remember in the '70s when they were talking about the impending ice age.

JOHN: Yes, I do. I was in school. I was terrified. I went and bought -- I wanted new winter coats for Christmas every year. I didn't even want toys.

KURT: And, of course, their solution was more money and power for liberals.

JOHN: Of course. And, look, it's the same people --

KURT: Same with the ozone hole.

JOHN: Acid rain was the -- yeah, that was big in the late '80s. Early '90s.

You know, Kurt, it's always an absolute -- I feel so much after I talk to you. And after the show, I'm going to give you a call. I'm going to get you to Chappaqua with me. We're going to walk through the woods.

KURT: We should go. We need a camera crew.

JOHN: We got to go. Kurt Schlichter, everybody. Catch him on Townhall.com. The great Colonel Schlichter will be speaking soon my friend.

You've been with John Cardillo. Well, you're still with John Cardillo, sitting in for Glenn Beck. The Glenn Beck Program. We'll be right back.

Featured Image: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

How America’s elites fell for the same lie that fueled Auschwitz

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone footage out of Gaza isn’t just war propaganda — it’s a glimpse of the same darkness that once convinced men they were righteous for killing innocents.

Evil introduces itself subtly. It doesn’t announce, “Hi, I’m here to destroy you.” It whispers. It flatters. It borrows the language of justice, empathy, and freedom, twisting them until hatred sounds righteous and violence sounds brave.

We are watching that same deception unfold again — in the streets, on college campuses, and in the rhetoric of people who should know better. It’s the oldest story in the world, retold with new slogans.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

A drone video surfaced this week showing Hamas terrorists staging the “discovery” of a hostage’s body. They pushed a corpse out of a window, dragged it into a hole, buried it, and then called in aid workers to “find” what they themselves had planted. It was theater — evil, disguised as victimhood. And it was caught entirely on camera.

That’s how evil operates. It never comes in through the front door. It sneaks in, often through manipulative pity. The same spirit animates the moral rot spreading through our institutions — from the halls of universities to the chambers of government.

Take Zohran Mamdani, a New York assemblyman who has praised jihadists and defended pro-Hamas agitators. His father, a Columbia University professor, wrote that America and al-Qaeda are morally equivalent — that suicide bombings shouldn’t be viewed as barbaric. Imagine thinking that way after watching 3,000 Americans die on 9/11. That’s not intellectualism. That’s indoctrination.

Often, that indoctrination comes from hostile foreign actors, peddled by complicit pawns on our own soil. The pro-Hamas protests that erupted across campuses last year, for example, were funded by Iran — a regime that murders its own citizens for speaking freely.

Ancient evil, new clothes

But the deeper danger isn’t foreign money. It’s the spiritual blindness that lets good people believe resentment is justice and envy is discernment. Scripture talks about the spirit of Amalek — the eternal enemy of God’s people, who attacks the weak from behind while the strong look away. Amalek never dies; it just changes its vocabulary and form with the times.

Today, Amalek tweets. He speaks through professors who defend terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.” He preaches from pulpits that call violence “solidarity.” And he recruits through algorithms, whispering that the Jews control everything, that America had it coming, that chaos is freedom. Those are ancient lies wearing new clothes.

When nations embrace those lies, it’s not the Jews who perish first. It’s the nations themselves. The soul dies long before the body. The ovens of Auschwitz didn’t start with smoke; they started with silence and slogans.

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

So what do we do? We speak truth — calmly, firmly, without venom. Because hatred can’t kill hatred; it only feeds it. Truth, compassion, and courage starve it to death.

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage. That’s how Amalek survives — by making you fight him with his own weapons. The only victory that lasts is moral clarity without malice, courage without cruelty.

The war we’re fighting isn’t new. It’s the same battle between remembrance and amnesia, covenant and chaos, humility and pride. The same spirit that whispered to Pharaoh, to Hitler, and to every mob that thought hatred could heal the world is whispering again now — on your screens, in your classrooms, in your churches.

Will you join it, or will you stand against it?

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

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.

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.