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

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?

The melting pot fails when we stop agreeing to melt

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Texas now hosts Quran-first academies, Sharia-compliant housing schemes, and rapidly multiplying mosques — all part of a movement building a self-contained society apart from the country around it.

It is time to talk honestly about what is happening inside America’s rapidly growing Muslim communities. In city after city, large pockets of newcomers are choosing to build insulated enclaves rather than enter the broader American culture.

That trend is accelerating, and the longer we ignore it, the harder it becomes to address.

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world.

America has always welcomed people of every faith and people from every corner of the world, but the deal has never changed: You come here and you join the American family. You are free to honor your traditions, keep your faith, but you must embrace the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. You melt into the shared culture that allows all of us to live side by side.

Across the country, this bargain is being rejected by Islamist communities that insist on building a parallel society with its own rules, its own boundaries, and its own vision for how life should be lived.

Texas illustrates the trend. The state now has roughly 330 mosques. At least 48 of them were built in just the last 24 months. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex alone has around 200 Islamic centers. Houston has another hundred or so. Many of these communities have no interest in blending into American life.

This is not the same as past waves of immigration. Irish, Italian, Korean, Mexican, and every other group arrived with pride in their heritage. Still, they also raised American flags and wanted their children to be part of the country’s future. They became doctors, small-business owners, teachers, and soldiers. They wanted to be Americans.

What we are watching now is not the melting pot. It is isolation by design.

Parallel societies do not end well

More than 300 fundamentalist Islamic schools now operate full-time across the country. Many use Quran-first curricula that require students to spend hours memorizing religious texts before they ever reach math or science. In Dallas, Brighter Horizons Academy enrolls more than 1,700 students and draws federal support while operating on a social model that keeps children culturally isolated.

Then there is the Epic City project in Collin and Hunt counties — 402 acres originally designated only for Muslim buyers, with Sharia-compliant financing and a mega-mosque at the center. After public outcry and state investigations, the developers renamed it “The Meadows,” but a new sign does not erase the original intent. It is not a neighborhood. It is a parallel society.

Americans should not hesitate to say that parallel societies are dangerous. Europe tried this experiment, and the results could not be clearer. In Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, entire neighborhoods now operate under their own cultural rules, some openly hostile to Western norms. When citizens speak up, they are branded bigots for asserting a basic right: the ability to live safely in their own communities.

A crisis of confidence

While this separation widens, another crisis is unfolding at home. A recent Gallup survey shows that about 40% of American women ages 18 to 39 would leave the country permanently if given the chance. Nearly half of a rising generation — daughters, sisters, soon-to-be mothers — no longer believe this nation is worth building a future in.

And who shapes the worldview of young boys? Their mothers. If a mother no longer believes America is home, why would her child grow up ready to defend it?

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world. If we lose confidence in our own national identity at the same time that we allow separatist enclaves to spread unchecked, the outcome is predictable. Europe is already showing us what comes next: cultural fracture, political radicalization, and the slow death of national unity.

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Stand up and tell the truth

America welcomes Muslims. America defends their right to worship freely. A Muslim who loves the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and wants to raise a family in peace is more than welcome in America.

But an Islamist movement that rejects assimilation, builds enclaves governed by its own religious framework, and treats American law as optional is not simply another participant in our melting pot. It is a direct challenge to it. If we refuse to call this problem out out of fear of being called names, we will bear the consequences.

Europe is already feeling those consequences — rising conflict and a political class too paralyzed to admit the obvious. When people feel their culture, safety, and freedoms slipping away, they will follow anyone who promises to defend them. History has shown that over and over again.

Stand up. Speak plainly. Be unafraid. You can practice any faith in this country, but the supremacy of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian moral framework that shaped it is non-negotiable. It is what guarantees your freedom in the first place.

If you come here and honor that foundation, welcome. If you come here to undermine it, you do not belong here.

Wake up to what is unfolding before the consequences arrive. Because when a nation refuses to say what is true, the truth eventually forces its way in — and by then, it is always too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Shocking: AI-written country song tops charts, sparks soul debate

VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

A machine can imitate heartbreak well enough to top the charts, but it cannot carry grief, choose courage, or hear the whisper that calls human beings to something higher.

The No. 1 country song in America right now was not written in Nashville or Texas or even L.A. It came from code. “Walk My Walk,” the AI-generated single by the AI artist Breaking Rust, hit the top spot on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart, and if you listen to it without knowing that fact, you would swear a real singer lived the pain he is describing.

Except there is no “he.” There is no lived experience. There is no soul behind the voice dominating the country music charts.

If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

I will admit it: I enjoy some AI music. Some of it is very good. And that leaves us with a question that is no longer science fiction. If a machine can fake being human this well, what does it mean to be human?

A new world of artificial experience

This is not just about one song. We are walking straight into a technological moment that will reshape everyday life.

Elon Musk said recently that we may not even have phones in five years. Instead, we will carry a small device that listens, anticipates, and creates — a personal AI agent that knows what we want to hear before we ask. It will make the music, the news, the podcasts, the stories. We already live in digital bubbles. Soon, those bubbles might become our own private worlds.

If an algorithm can write a hit country song about hardship and perseverance without a shred of actual experience, then the deeper question becomes unavoidable: If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

What machines can never do

A machine can produce, and soon it may produce better than we can. It can calculate faster than any human mind. It can rearrange the notes and words of a thousand human songs into something that sounds real enough to fool millions.

But it cannot care. It cannot love. It cannot choose right and wrong. It cannot forgive because it cannot be hurt. It cannot stand between a child and danger. It cannot walk through sorrow.

A machine can imitate the sound of suffering. It cannot suffer.

The difference is the soul. The divine spark. The thing God breathed into man that no code will ever have. Only humans can take pain and let it grow into compassion. Only humans can take fear and turn it into courage. Only humans can rebuild their lives after losing everything. Only humans hear the whisper inside, the divine voice that says, “Live for something greater.”

We are building artificial minds. We are not building artificial life.

Questions that define us

And as these artificial minds grow sharper, as their tools become more convincing, the right response is not panic. It is to ask the oldest and most important questions.

Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of freedom? What is worth defending? What is worth sacrificing for?

That answer is not found in a lab or a server rack. It is found in that mysterious place inside each of us where reason meets faith, where suffering becomes wisdom, where God reminds us we are more than flesh and more than thought. We are not accidents. We are not circuits. We are not replaceable.

Europa Press News / Contributor | Getty Images

The miracle machines can never copy

Being human is not about what we can produce. Machines will outproduce us. That is not the question. Being human is about what we can choose. We can choose to love even when it costs us something. We can choose to sacrifice when it is not easy. We can choose to tell the truth when the world rewards lies. We can choose to stand when everyone else bows. We can create because something inside us will not rest until we do.

An AI content generator can borrow our melodies, echo our stories, and dress itself up like a human soul, but it cannot carry grief across a lifetime. It cannot forgive an enemy. It cannot experience wonder. It cannot look at a broken world and say, “I am going to build again.”

The age of machines is rising. And if we do not know who we are, we will shrink. But if we use this moment to remember what makes us human, it will help us to become better, because the one thing no algorithm will ever recreate is the miracle that we exist at all — the miracle of the human soul.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Shocking shift: America’s youth lured by the “Socialism trap”

Jeremy Weine / Stringer | Getty Images

A generation that’s lost faith in capitalism is turning to the oldest lie on earth: equality through control.

Something is breaking in America’s young people. You can feel it in every headline, every grocery bill, every young voice quietly asking if the American dream still means anything at all.

For many, the promise of America — work hard, build something that lasts, and give the next generation a better start — feels like it no longer exists. Home ownership and stability have become luxuries for a fortunate few.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them.

In that vacuum of hope, a new promise has begun to rise — one that sounds compassionate, equal, and fair. The promise of socialism.

The appeal of a broken dream

When the American dream becomes a checklist of things few can afford — a home, a car, two children, even a little peace — disappointment quickly turns to resentment. The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. Debt lasts longer than marriages. The cost of living rises faster than opportunity.

For a generation that has never seen the system truly work, capitalism feels like a rigged game built to protect those already at the top.

That is where socialism finds its audience. It presents itself as fairness for the forgotten and justice for the disillusioned. It speaks softly at first, offering equality, compassion, and control disguised as care.

We are seeing that illusion play out now in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani — an open socialist — has won a major political victory. The same ideology that once hid behind euphemisms now campaigns openly throughout America’s once-great cities. And for many who feel left behind, it sounds like salvation.

But what socialism calls fairness is submission dressed as virtue. What it calls order is obedience. Once the system begins to replace personal responsibility with collective dependence, the erosion of liberty is only a matter of time.

The bridge that never ends

Socialism is not a destination; it is a bridge. Karl Marx described it as the necessary transition to communism — the scaffolding that builds the total state. Under socialism, people are taught to obey. Under communism, they forget that any other options exist.

History tells the story clearly. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba — each promised equality and delivered misery. One hundred million lives were lost, not because socialism failed, but because it succeeded at what it was designed to do: make the state supreme and the individual expendable.

Today’s advocates insist their version will be different — democratic, modern, and kind. They often cite Sweden as an example, but Sweden’s prosperity was never born of socialism. It grew out of capitalism, self-reliance, and a shared moral culture. Now that system is cracking under the weight of bureaucracy and division.

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

The real issue is not economic but moral. Socialism begins with a lie about human nature — that people exist for the collective and that the collective knows better than the individual.

This lie is contrary to the truths on which America was founded — that rights come not from government’s authority, but from God’s. Once government replaces that authority, compassion becomes control, and freedom becomes permission.

What young America deserves

Young Americans have many reasons to be frustrated. They were told to study, work hard, and follow the rules — and many did, only to find the goalposts moved again and again. But tearing down the entire house does not make it fairer; it only leaves everyone standing in the rubble.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them. The answer is not revolution but renewal — moral, cultural, and spiritual.

It means restoring honesty to markets, integrity to government, and faith to the heart of our nation. A people who forsake God will always turn to government for salvation, and that road always ends in dependency and decay.

Freedom demands something of us. It requires faith, discipline, and courage. It expects citizens to govern themselves before others govern them. That is the truth this generation deserves to hear again — that liberty is not a gift from the state but a calling from God.

Socialism always begins with promises and ends with permission. It tells you what to drive, what to say, what to believe, all in the name of fairness. But real fairness is not everyone sharing the same chains — it is everyone having the same chance.

The American dream was never about guarantees. It was about the right to try, to fail, and try again. That freedom built the most prosperous nation in history, and it can do so again if we remember that liberty is not a handout but a duty.

Socialism does not offer salvation. It requires subservience.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.