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

Happy Birthday, Glenn: Pat & Stu Rate Donald Trump's Insults

February 10, 2017
Staff

WRITER

CNN's Jake Tapper recently appear on Stephen Colbert's show where the host listed insults levied at CNN by President Donald Trump. This inspired co-hosts Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere, filling in for a sick Glenn Beck, to give a special birthday tribute to their boss.

"He's going to love this segment. Can we not air what we just did? I know it's a live show, but can we not air it to one specific household. Is that possible? Can we make the Internet go out for, you know, just a short time? Oh, by the way, we should also mention happy birthday, Glenn," Stu said.

Here is a list of insults that then candidate Donald Trump said about Glenn. Pat and Stu gave them a thumbs up or thumbs down for accuracy:

• His endorsement means nothing

• Dumb as a rock

• Crying

• Failing

• Irrelevant

• Wacko

• Failing, crying, lost soul

• Sad

• Zero credibility

• Very dumb and failing

• Mental basket case

• Viewers and ratings are way down

• A real nut job

How did they vote?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: All right. Could be a fascinating four years. It has already been a fascinating four weeks. And we've barely begun here. We haven't even scratched the surface of how interesting the Donald Trump presidency is going to be. Last night Colbert had Jake Tapper on, and he went through this litany of the things that Donald Trump has already called his network.

Fake news, fraud, unwatchable, a disgrace on the broadcasting industry, disgusting, phony reporting, unprofessional, bad television, and CNN can go to hell.

[Laughter]

STU: A long list there.

PAT: Yes. But that's what Donald Trump does.

STU: Yeah, that's what he does.

JEFFY: That's what he does.

STU: Sometimes earlier nails them. Some of them are satisfying to hear. Some of them don't really make sense in the case. I thought it would be a good time because he's not here to defend himself is go through the insults that Donald Trump has leveled against Glenn Beck. Are these legitimate? Are these good quality insults accurate ones? Or do you think these really apply, or do they not? Are these fake insults?

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: So let's start off. I mean, I think he starts off on the right foot here. His endorsement means nothing. Right there.

PAT: You got that one right.

STU: You got that one right for sure. So there you go. That one is a good start. Dumb as a rock. No. Look, I mean, he might not be -- as he said many times. I'm not a scientist, but I'm a thinker. I think he's slightly elevated from a rock.

PAT: I would have to say, no, he's smarter than a rock. Got that one wrong.

JEFFY: Absolutely.

STU: Next one. And I don't even know if it's an insult. But the New York Times listed on every insult Donald Trump has made against everyone. He made this insult against Glenn Beck. Crying.

Now, this is a tough one because, first of all, I don't know if it's actually an insult. Yeah, crying I guess it could be an insult. But I get what he's going for. It certainly was applicable at one time.

PAT: Yeah, he did cry a lot for a while.

STU: Not a lot.

PAT: He cries a lot less now.

STU: A lot for an adult male, I would say.

PAT: Yes, I think we can give him crying.

STU: We'll give him crying. Although, it's a little outdated.

PAT: Yeah, it is.

STU: I haven't heard Glenn cry for quite a long time. He's lost all credibility.

PAT: No.

STU: I don't think he's lost all credibility. Obviously, Trump is going to say that. But that's largely because the Trump criticisms that Glenn has made in the past. I mean, you know, there's still a lot. Like, for example, has he lost all credibility when he says Neil Gorsuch is a good nominee? Probably not. He has just lost credibility on the things that he disagrees with Donald Trump on.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: So next up, failing. Now, we were supposed to go out of business a while ago.

PAT: Quite some time ago.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: What's the schedule on that?

PAT: September, wasn't it? It was a Friday in September.

STU: Specifically.

PAT: And we are still on the air. I'm going to have to call that one false. Count that wrong.

STU: Irrelevant. Is Glenn irrelevant?

PAT: The President of the United States still talks about him. Can't be irrelevant. I'm going to say no on that one.

STU: All right. Next up is wacko.

PAT: I mean, I think that one -- that's pretty subjective but, yes, we'll give him wacko.

STU: That was a very good job by the president there. How about -- this is all enclosed in one installment. Failing, crying, lost soul.

[Laughter]

PAT: Failing, no.

STU: We gave him crying. We didn't give him failing. So really this comes down to lost soul. Is Glenn a lost soul? Glenn might argue he's a lost soul. But I don't think so.

JEFFY: He might. But I don't think so.

PAT: I can't give it to him. Can't give him lost soul.

STU: Sad. Absolutely. I am giving him sad.

PAT: He is sad.

STU: He is absolutely sad.

PAT: He's much more sad than a guy that successful should be.

STU: Yes, Glenn is --

JEFFY: Right.

STU: I honestly think Glenn could be President of the United States and have all the money Donald Trump has and have a 100 percent approval generating, and he would still find a way to be depressed over it. So, yes, sad I'm with. Has zero credibility.

PAT: No. Again. No.

STU: Because that's essentially the same as lost all credibility. Next up is very dumb and failing. Donald Trump insults of Glenn Beck.

PAT: Going to give him a no and no on that one.

STU: Another irrelevant. We already covered that one. This is an is interesting one. Donald Trump insults of Glenn Beck. Mental basket case.

[Laughter]

JEFFY: That's a tough one.

PAT: That's a hard one.

STU: As a guy who employs us, we should probably say no on that one. But there's some evidence. I'm going to entertain that one.

PAT: Can we give him a yes and no on that? Like, partial. That works.

STU: He's not going to be pleased with that generating.

PAT: No, both sides of the issues, Glenn. You wanted us to be fair.

STU: How about viewers and ratings are way down? That one I know is not true because I get the spreadsheet every month.

PAT: Not true.

STU: A real nut job.

JEFFY: See, that goes back to the other one.

STU: I just --

PAT: I'm going to say he's not a nut job. He's not a nut job.

STU: Look, the Ninth Circuit court had a three judge panel here. Let's not just jump to conclusions. We've got our own three-judge panel here. I mean I -- a real nut job. I mean --

PAT: I'm going no on that.

JEFFY: A nut job is different than a basket case.

STU: It is different than a basket case. But it's job as -- we're judges here. We are so-called judges here. We can make a determination. Is Glenn Beck a real nut job.

PAT: I can see where you want to go "yes" on this. Don't you?

STU: Here's the thing. As the third judge here if I say both of you say "no," my vote won't count.

JEFFY: What was the one two ago that was --

PAT: Mental basket case.

JEFFY: Mental basket case. And we said "yes" on that.

STU: Well, we said -- we gave him a half.

JEFFY: Half and half.

STU: I can see how you get there.

PAT: Nut job. Some people are calling him the most reasonable man in the room now.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I'm going to say no on nut job.

STU: Control room disagrees with that ruling.

[Laughter]

How about always seems to be crying. Now, crying we gave him.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: But always seems to be crying.

PAT: No, not anymore. That's old.

STU: At this point, I'm going to go with no. And last one here. Insults by Donald Trump against Glenn Beck. The last one in our collection. Wacky. I think wacky's fine.

PAT: Sure.

STU: Wacky is a -- probably an okay -- he's going to love this segment. Can we not air what we just did? I know it's a live show. But can we not air it to a -- one specific household. Is that possible? Can we make the Internet go out for, you know, just a short time? Oh, by the way, we should also mention happy birthday, Glenn.

[Laughter]

JEFFY: We're so sorry you're sick. We wish you were better.

STU: He's, like, I take -- I'm off on my birthday because I'm sick.

PAT: And this is what I get?

STU: I think, again, we praised Jake Tapper for being fair.

PAT: Right.

STU: And what did we do? We went through this list. Some true. Some false.

PAT: I think it was fair.

STU: I'm sure Glenn would appreciate it. Well, I'm not entirely sure, but I think maybe.

PAT: You would like to think he would appreciate it.

STU: Some of it.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

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!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

When did Americans start cheering for chaos?

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.