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

They Can't Let Go of the Meryl Streep Thing

January 10, 2017
Staff

WRITER

We all know by now the brouhaha created by Meryl Streep's speech at the Golden Globes in which she bravely attacked Donald Trump in front of her like-minded peers. Then, shock of shocks, Donald Trump declared Meryl Streep overrated and irrelevant. The media, rather than letting it go, have become obsessed with debunking President-elect Trump's declaration. Equally unable to let it go were the host and co-hosts of The Glenn Beck Program, who made it their mission to debunk the debunking of Meryl Streep's mediocrity.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So I get in early today, and, Jeffy, you would know this because you do the Pat & Stu show. They haven't let go of the Meryl Streep thing.

JEFFY: It's tough to let go of. When you say they, I'm in there with them. It's still tough to let go of.

GLENN: It's tough to let go of.

JEFFY: She is agonizing.

GLENN: Here, this is what kills me is the fact that the media actually tried to do a -- a -- what do they call it? A debunking of that. And they went to see if indeed Meryl Streep was irrelevant and overrated.

JEFFY: I mean, it's --

GLENN: First of all, that's an opinion. That's not -- I mean, this is the thing they decide to spend their time on. Really?

PAT: Pretty weird.

GLENN: It's just so bizarre.

PAT: And, of course, she is overrated.

JEFFY: And irrelevant. I don't know about irrelevant.

GLENN: Make the case.

PAT: Unless you have a standard set of criteria.

GLENN: Because I look at her -- with the exception of that Abba nightmare that just won't leave me alone.

PAT: Mamma Mia! is a good example.

GLENN: Oh, oh.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: And that's one of the ones they feature prominently in that big --

JEFFY: Yeah. The only reason I know that show is because my parents loved that show.

GLENN: Oh, I hated that show. I hated every second of that show.

JEFFY: I know.

GLENN: I would have eaten off my arms, if I could -- if it would have meant I could be free from that --

PAT: And if you didn't like a musical, there must have been something wrong with you.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Mamma Mia! was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life, seeing that you made me go see it.

JEFFY: That's right.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I did. As a punishment.

STU: As a punishment for something. I don't remember what it was.

PAT: Let's talk Ricki and the Flash.

JEFFY: Another singing one.

STU: I think we can all agree Mamma Mia! was one of the worst things that's ever been created. It's also her highest grossing picture. In case you're worried --

GLENN: But that's not her.

STU: Yeah, I know it's not her. Success, it's not her. And that's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Her entire career is filled with --

GLENN: Sophie's Choice, not good?

STU: '81 to '85, she has two movies in there: Cramer versus Cramer.

PAT: No, that was '79. But '79 to '85 was probably the highlight of her career. Cramer versus Cramer.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Excellent.

PAT: Sophie's Choice.

GLENN: Excellent.

PAT: And Out of Africa. Is that the other --

STU: You're going to give her out of Africa?

GLENN: I'll give her Out of Africa. What about Silkwood?

STU: Yeah, Silkwood.

PAT: Filmed in this studio on this stage, and that's what it is --

STU: However, I mean, okay. Let's just give her that for the fun of it. That gets you to 1985. So she's got a few movies pre-1985 that you could say are good. Then you have a good decade of nothing, unless you want to throw She-Devil in the mix for a good third.

GLENN: Oh, horrible.

PAT: Are you forgetting Iron Weed?

STU: Thank you very much. So a bunch of nothing until -- now, yes, she appeared -- for example, she was a supporting actress in Defending Your Life. Defending Your Life --

PAT: That's an Albert Brooks --

STU: That's an Albert Brooks movie though. It's not a a Meryl Streep movie.

GLENN: No, but she was good in it.

STU: She was okay in it.

JEFFY: She was okay.

GLENN: She wasn't bad. She was good in it.

STU: Is it a career-defining role? The answer to that is no. The next one of those you get --

PAT: You might say a lot of people liked that.

STU: The next one you get really is Bridges of Madison County.

GLENN: Oh, was agonizing.

PAT: Which was horrific.

STU: Horrible. Horrible.

GLENN: Wait a minute.

STU: Now, ten years --

GLENN: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let's have the discussion --

STU: Terrible.

GLENN: -- is it horrible -- wait a minute, is it horrible or is it horrible because we saw her and Clint Eastwood with his and her shirts off.

PAT: Yes. That was a big part of it.

GLENN: I was scarred.

STU: That was part of the movie, but it's still a bad movie.

GLENN: I don't have any recollection other than that.

STU: Let's get -- Pat, give the recollection quickly of what happened in the movie, Bridges of Madison County.

GLENN: I know this one.

PAT: Let's see, a hard-working loving considerate husband and father, protector of his wife and children, as kind of a favor -- a good thing for his children and a favor for his wife, takes the two kids to the state fair for a week.

STU: That's nice.

PAT: And while he is doing that loving act of kindness for his wife, she is inviting some stranger -- some drifter who showed up at the door in to do her for the week. I mean, it is a horrific premise.

GLENN: Wow.

STU: What a wonderful --

PAT: I mean, that's the thanks he gets for being a good man. Hideous movie. I hate that book. I hate that movie.

GLENN: I remember reading the book and liking it. I don't remember it framed that way.

PAT: I don't think the book framed itself that way, but that's what it is.

GLENN: Right.

STU: So that's the breakup. From '83 to '95, we find the good piece of work, which is Bridges of Madison County, which as Pat I think just described was not as good as maybe some others say. Then you're taking some more time off from her wonderful success as a magical actress, and you clear -- I mean, you could go to adaptation, which I didn't particularly like, but it was a critical darling --

PAT: I didn't see it, to know what that is.

STU: Then you're going all the way, I would say, to probably Devil Wears Prada.

PAT: Which is a good movie.

STU: Now, Devil Wears Prada is a career-defining movie. I think you could put it that way. However, is it really, be honest, a role that any other somewhat similarly aged actress could do?

PAT: Glenn Close could do it easily.

STU: Oh, absolutely. Sigourney Weaver. Absolutely. There's a dozen people that you could think of at the top of your head.

PAT: Julia Roberts would have had no problem.

GLENN: Yes, yes, yes.

STU: You had to be old and mean. And that was essentially it. And it's not that big of a deal.

GLENN: Betty White could have done it.

STU: Absolutely. She would have been fantastic in that role. But because it was Meryl Streep, it was some amazing thing that she did. In reality, it was just another movie.

And she, again, wasn't the star of the movie. She was the secondary character.

GLENN: So where did she develop this --

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where did she develop --

JEFFY: Yes. This is the question.

GLENN: I was actually not on your side, until you started presenting the case.

STU: Because there's a lot of stuff in here.

PAT: Julie versus Julia.

STU: Okay. Julie versus Julia is a pretty good movie.

PAT: Where she did a pretty serviceable imitation of Julia Childs. But so did Dan Aykroyd. He could have played that part.

JEFFY: Thank you. Thank you.

GLENN: No, that's not true. That's not true.

STU: No, he's right. Aykroyd was better.

No. She did a good impression of that.

But, for example, Jim Carrey did a much better impression of Andy Kaufman. No one is throwing him into the freaking Hall of Fame for it.

PAT: Oh, yeah. That was genius.

GLENN: That was genius.

PAT: Yeah, that was genius.

STU: He was genius in that role. And everybody was like, oh, well, it was just an impression. That's what she did.

And, by the way, she wasn't even the main character in the movie. She was in the movie for like ten minutes.

Okay. So where are we here? Then we're Mamma Mia! Okay? Which we've all discussed as a disaster.

PAT: But you're right. 144 million. That's her biggest box office.

STU: Biggest box office of all time. Inflation adjusted is a problem, but still.

PAT: Of all time.

GLENN: Literally, that could have been done by muppets. It's the music that carried that.

PAT: Right. Right.

GLENN: That's all that was, was a music video.

STU: Again, if you put a different person who was a better singer in that role, it would have been better. It wasn't that she nailed the part above and beyond anybody else.

GLENN: But, again, I think the muppets would have been better.

STU: Exactly.

PAT: Then you get some roles where she was actually terrible in.

And Into the Woods is one of them.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Into the Woods, she was absolutely bad in that movie.

STU: It was a fairytale. Right?

PAT: Yeah. It was a Disney -- she was terrible.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, yeah. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.

JEFFY: Terrible.

PAT: Surprisingly bad. Because I was under the impression, still, buying into the three Oscars and eight Golden Globes, she's a great actress. And I'm thinking, "She is terrible in this. What happened?"

GLENN: Right.

STU: And then Ricki and the Flash is the ultimate exclamation point in this conversation. She plays the aging rock star. A complete disaster. And, yeah, yeah, she has three Oscars. She's had 19 nominations. How about winning occasionally? How about that?

Without civic action, America faces collapse

JEFF KOWALSKY / Contributor | Getty Images

Every vote, jury duty, and act of engagement is civics in action, not theory. The republic survives only when citizens embrace responsibility.

I slept through high school civics class. I memorized the three branches of government, promptly forgot them, and never thought of that word again. Civics seemed abstract, disconnected from real life. And yet, it is critical to maintaining our republic.

Civics is not a class. It is a responsibility. A set of habits, disciplines, and values that make a country possible. Without it, no country survives.

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Civics happens every time you speak freely, worship openly, question your government, serve on a jury, or cast a ballot. It’s not a theory or just another entry in a textbook. It’s action — the acts we perform every day to be a positive force in society.

Many of us recoil at “civic responsibility.” “I pay my taxes. I follow the law. I do my civic duty.” That’s not civics. That’s a scam, in my opinion.

Taking up the torch

The founders knew a republic could never run on autopilot. And yet, that’s exactly what we do now. We assume it will work, then complain when it doesn’t. Meanwhile, the people steering the country are driving it straight into a mountain — and they know it.

Our founders gave us tools: separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, elections. But they also warned us: It won’t work unless we are educated, engaged, and moral.

Are we educated, engaged, and moral? Most Americans cannot even define a republic, never mind “keep one,” as Benjamin Franklin urged us to do after the Constitutional Convention.

We fought and died for the republic. Gaining it was the easy part. Keeping it is hard. And keeping it is done through civics.

Start small and local

In our homes, civics means teaching our children the Constitution, our history, and that liberty is not license — it is the space to do what is right. In our communities, civics means volunteering, showing up, knowing your sheriff, attending school board meetings, and understanding the laws you live under. When necessary, it means challenging them.

How involved are you in your local community? Most people would admit: not really.

Civics is learned in practice. And it starts small. Be honest in your business dealings. Speak respectfully in disagreement. Vote in every election, not just the presidential ones. Model citizenship for your children. Liberty is passed down by teaching and example.

Samuel Corum / Stringer | Getty Images

We assume America will survive automatically, but every generation must learn to carry the weight of freedom.

Start with yourself. Study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and state laws. Study, act, serve, question, and teach. Only then can we hope to save the republic. The next election will not fix us. The nation will rise or fall based on how each of us lives civics every day.

Civics isn’t a class. It’s the way we protect freedom, empower our communities, and pass down liberty to the next generation.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.