GLENNFebruary 27, 2017

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Texas high school wrestler Mack Beggs recently won the state championship --- the female state championship --- amid controversy that caused some competitors to forfeit rather than wrestle the junior from Trinity High School in Euless, Texas. Beggs, who is transitioning from a girl to a boy, has been taking regular doses of testosterone.

"Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second, and we'll just talk about how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone --- for a girl, right? --- would be able to compete at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Many argue that the high levels of testosterone, which build strength and muscles, give Beggs an unfair advantage. Begging the question, if it's Beggs' choice to transition, shouldn't she make concessions during the interim to maintain a level playing field? Concessions like not wrestling until the transition is complete?

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: We've had this situation where there is a girl who is transitioning to a boy. And she's 17 years old. She's a wrestler. And so she wanted -- apparently, she wanted to wrestle in the boy's division this year, right?

JEFFY: Correct. Correct.

PAT: Because she's making that switch. So she's going from boy to girl.

STU: And the Texas rule is, you compete in the gender that you were born.

PAT: That's on your birth certificate.

STU: Yes.

PAT: Especially I guess as long as you have that genitalia, which she does. She's a girl.

STU: Yeah, I don't know -- if you've gone through the full transition, I don't know -- again, if you're talking about kids, this is a pretty new development. I don't know if they have a rule for that.

PAT: Yeah, I don't either.

STU: I think the rule is the gender you had when you were born.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: So that's the rule in Texas because it's hateful. How can you possibly ask somebody to compete in the gender category they were born into, how can you ask that?

STU: You can't, Pat. You can't.

PAT: You can't. Because what if you feel differently? Anyway, she does.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: But she was made to -- she was put in the girl's category for wrestling. So she just won the tournament last week.

JEFFY: Yeah, she won the championship.

PAT: She won the championship.

JEFFY: The -- one of the issues is, is that she is actually going through the transition and taking the prescribed medicine to make the change. And so it's working.

PAT: The testosterone.

STU: Right. And, by the way, this ends any argument of all time as to whether men or women are better athletes. Just -- because this whole thing of -- the old Billie Jean King thing back in the day. Let's be honest about it. You take testosterone, you become better and stronger at sports.

PAT: Right.

STU: Sorry.

PAT: Now, that is science. That is science.

JEFFY: That is science.

STU: So sorry. I guess we have to apologize for that.

PAT: Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. You can -- I guess you can try to deny it and say that women are just as strong in every instance as men. It's just not the case.

STU: No, they're better at certain --

PAT: Yes. They're just not built the same way as we are. And that's a good thing. It was supposed to be that way. We're supposed to be different. And we are. And we are.

STU: Stunning. A stunning development that everyone knew at a level of 100 percent until very recently.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: This is insane. And, by the way, if a man were to take testosterone in the -- in Major League Baseball or the NFL --

STU: I like how you're saying this as a crazy hypothetical.

PAT: I know.

STU: If in some circumstance somehow --

PAT: And they do.

STU: -- some at least decided to take performance enhancing drugs --

PAT: I don't remember who it was. But your testosterone as a man in the normal range is 400 to 800, maybe up to 1,000. And that's fairly normal. I can't remember who the baseball player was. It might have been A-Rod. He had a testosterone level -- and I shouldn't mention him because I don't remember who it was. But I remember their level was 4,000. So clearly they had been --

JEFFY: That's a man.

PAT: No man takes -- or has that much natural testosterone. So clearly, they had been taking testosterone, so they were better at what they were doing than they otherwise would have been. So it works on men as well as girls transitioning to men. So obviously, this girl is going to become stronger, she's going to be faster. She's going to be better able to wrestle than she was as a girl with no testosterone.

JEFFY: Right. And the argument also from the other parents that are suing the school board is that, hey, she is taking this medicine. That's making her into a boy. We don't want her wrestling.

PAT: And in Texas, you can take -- you can compete if you've been prescribed the testosterone by a doctor, and she was.

JEFFY: Correct. And there are several -- there are three or four other things on that list that the Wrestling Association says it's okay as long as it's prescribed and that would not be okay if it was not prescribed, for sure.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And the reason for that, by the way, quickly, steroids are like standard treatment for a lot of illnesses.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: Yes. Right.

STU: If you break out in a rash or if you have -- if you're sick in any number of ways.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: One of the first responses is to give you a shot of steroids because, you know, it works. It's pretty effective.

PAT: It reduces swelling, aids in healing. It just -- it calms down infection. I mean, it does a lot of different things. I've taken steroids quite a bit. Because I've been sick lately. And it helps. They help.

STU: A lot.

PAT: So it kind of makes sense that there are certain circumstances under which -- you know, because if you're taking anabolic steroids, that's one thing. But if you're taking steroids that a normal doctor would prescribe for an illness that's a different deal.

JEFFY: Which is pretty much what they were covering when they made the rules, before this.

PAT: Right. So, anyway, Stu heard this interview on the way in by Chris Cuomo. And is it the lawyer representing the other girls in the tournament?

STU: No, this is Ben Ferguson, who is a talk show host. He's a CNN contributor, so he's there to take the evil right-wing side of this argument. Chris Cuomo who purpose or it is I guess to be a journalist. I don't know that for a fact. But it seems like he wants to come off as evenhanded on the show is a straight-out activist on this show.

PAT: Yes.

STU: And the reason is because he's in the middle of his own personal issue with the transgendered argument, which is last week someone tweeted to him -- when talking about the transgendered issue, what do you tell a 12-year-old girl who doesn't want to see a man's unit in the locker room?

So a 12-year-old girl is in the locker room, someone changing next to them, takes down their pants and has a guy junk. Right? He's got guy junk.

What do you tell that 12-year-old girl? His response was, I wonder if she is the problem.

PAT: Good gosh.

STU: Or her overprotective and intolerant dad. Teach tolerance. That was his response.

PAT: That's unbelievable.

STU: Now, look, that's unbelievable, to put that on the 12-year-old girl.

PAT: Unbelievable response.

STU: A 12-year-old girl is not equipped to -- even if this were the most logical thing in the world, is not equipped to make that determination. She's going to be interested in what she's interested in at that age. That's going to be -- it's a moment -- it's an era of discovery, right. And so that is not something that you would necessarily want -- that's why they have separation.

Because honestly, with this standard, why bother with two different bathrooms? Why bother with two different locker rooms for any reason? Why bother? Why not just be tolerant of male genitalia all the time for 12-year-old girls? Why is it only when someone else outside of their decision-making process makes a decision they identify a different way. Right? Someone else has done that, that doesn't affect the 12-year-old girl in this scenario. She hasn't made any judgment, well, I identify that person as a female, therefore the junk that I'm looking at is not male. That's not her determination. It's someone else's determination. So that is -- it's an absurd argument on its face.

But he got so much heat for that tweet, blaming the 12-year-old girl and her intolerant dad of not being accepting of penises in the locker room, which is essentially what he said: You should be tolerant of the penis.

That was the word they used. He got so much heat for that. He's now in, I've locked myself in the corner, and I'm going to be defensive on this point no matter what. Which, it brings out the best in Chris Cuomo. Because he's now so desperate to prove that this wasn't a mistake, he'll say anything.

PAT: Yeah. Listen to this.

VOICE: What's your take on the tournament, my friend?

VOICE: Well, first off, I think this -- take the transgendered issue out of it for a second. If you are taking testosterone, which is a performance-enhancing drug in sports, you shouldn't be able to wrestle.

PAT: Correct. There you go.

VOICE: And this gave a completely unfair advantage to this participant. You can talk about that whether you are in your age-group or in your sex group that are associated with. If you're taking something that is performance enhancing, you're not a real champion. You cheated and you won.

Now, the state I think has some blame for this, by having it where they're even allowing these testosterones to be used if they're prescribed by a doctor. That's where I think the big fix probably needs to come.

STU: Stop for a second. Because this is -- so, first of all, this is his first response. Take the emotion and the politics out of the transgendered issue for a second. And we'll just talk about you how ridiculous it is that a girl who is taking heavy amounts of testosterone for a girl, right? Would be able to compete at all. So taking out the transgendered issue, it's still wrong. So he's already won the argument at this point, right?

JEFFY: Right. Right.

STU: But not with Chris Cuomo who can't possibly accept this.

CHRIS: If there was acceptance, we wouldn't have had this issue because this kid would be wrestling against boys.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

STU: So here's his argument: So Chris, he falls back to --

PAT: If there were acceptance.

STU: I don't know what level we're going to fall back to on this. It's going to be hard to keep track of. But he falls back to, if there was -- if we taught acceptance, this wouldn't be an issue because she would be able to wrestle the boys like she wants to.

PAT: And in that eventuality, we wouldn't be talking about the story at all because she would have lost in the first round, and it would be over.

STU: Right. That's true.

PAT: It would be over.

STU: That's true. However -- however, we still would be talking about the issue. Why?

Because in a liberal state, let's say California, there would be a -- it would go the opposite way. You would have a boy who was transforming to be a girl and wanted to identify as a girl and then went into the girl's division and then destroyed all the girls. So the issue would still exist, it would just be in a liberal state and the opposite way. So he's completely wrong there to say the issue goes away if -- if we, quote, unquote, teach acceptance. The issue still exists, it's just on the opposite side.

VOICE: We know. And for those as you're learning about -- just so people know.

VOICE: Here's the thing.

VOICE: But hold on, Ben. Let's just clarify one thing: The science, you have to be careful about.

STU: This is argument two.

PAT: The science now.

VOICE: The amount of hormone that this kid is given is the minimum standard they can give to replicate the output of a boy.

STU: Okay. Stop. There's so much there.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Does he know the amount she's being given?

STU: First of all -- yes. So that was one of his big arguments in this. I assume he knows it because he quotes -- he kept saying, you have to look it up. You have to look it up. So, again, that's a bad assumption on my part.

PAT: Look it up, Jeffy. See how much testosterone --

STU: However, it's not the minimum amount that a girl would have, right? It's actually way more than a girl would have, which is what makes the transition happen.

PAT: Yes. Way more. It's the minimum amount for a boy.

STU: For a boy. Now, let's just say that that's true. So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating --

PAT: So even if his argument is true, it's still cheating.

STU: It still would be cheating as the girl. So his point is, well, then they should allow him -- her -- him to wrestle with the boys, right? Because he wants -- she identifies as a man. So we should think that she's a man. We should allow her to wrestle with the boys. Because she's not getting -- his point there is, he's not getting so much -- she's not getting so much more testosterone than the boy would normally have. So she's not a superhuman boy, she's just a boy, right? First of all, his wording is interesting there. The amount to replicate a boy.

If she's a boy, you do not need to replicate the boy.

If you're replicating something, you're replicating it because it's not actually happening. Therefore, your whole scientific argument is flawed. The thing that you're saying you want to happen isn't happening.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: She is not a boy. So if she was a boy, you would not need to replicate it.

PAT: Yeah, if you need to talk about science, what is she scientifically? She's a girl.

STU: She's a girl.

PAT: She's had no surgery. There's nothing been changed on her body. She's a girl. So if you want to talk science, she's a girl. And then -- so it's unfair for the girl to be getting testosterone, when the other girls aren't getting it.

STU: Right. Exactly. Now, his point seems to be, what he wants to happen is that she wrestles against the boys and then loses because she is getting only the appropriate level for a boy of testosterone.

Again, it's a ridiculous argument in and of itself. But if you're going -- even if you're going to entertain it, the point is, getting performance-enhancing drugs -- it's not to say that you let everyone come to the same level of testosterone. The point is, you don't get additional testosterone as to what you have naturally. That's the point of the rule. It's enhancing. Whether you think it's enhancing it only to equal, it's not the point. The point is, you don't enhance it to what you have naturally.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: She has very little naturally. And they're enhancing it to get a higher level, regardless of what level.

PAT: And all we're talking about here is -- the level of the other competitors is what we should be talking about, not the level of the boys.

STU: Yes. Right.

PAT: Because is it unfair for her to have beaten all these girls whose level of testosterone is ridiculous?

VOICE: Kids are going to be superhuman -- it's the opposite.

PAT: No, it's not the opposite.

VOICE: Scientifically, that is the outcome. If you look and do the research as I have, you'll see that.

STU: Oh, God.

PAT: What a condescending ass.

STU: Yes. Remember, this is a guy who is in full standing in the Douche Hall of Fame. And this is him showing off why he's there.

PAT: Exactly.

STU: And, by the way, on Pat and Stu today, a vote on Chris Cuomo as the Grand Nozzle after this interview. Because he deserves it from Harry Reid.

VOICE: If this state allowed this kid to wrestle against boys, which is what he wants, we wouldn't be talking about this case right now.

STU: Right. This case. You would be talking about a different case in a different state that went the opposite way. The issue would not go away at all based on that. You would just be arguing the opposite side of it.

PAT: True.

VOICE: But you also have to look at, there has to be a standard. And I think it's not insane or crazy for a state to say that you compete with the sex that's on your birth certificate. That's what I would refer to as logical. It is illogical to somehow imply that this kid is a victim because he decided to do something or change something and therefore you change the entire sport around it. That is the part that I think many people are sitting here and saying, "Hey, if you want to compete in a sport, period, then you cannot be taking performance-enhancing drugs and do it." But to say that we should change the entire way that sports is done because of one person and their decision to do something, that is unrealistic.

VOICE: Right.

But the premise is flawed. Because the logic requires --

STU: We got to come back. We're not going to have time to get it --

VOICE: I disagree. That's why we're having a discussion. That transgender doesn't count. But it does count, and that's why we're having this bigger debate about what you allow trans kids to have access to and what you don't.

PAT: He goes on to say that she identifies as a girl.

STU: Yeah, but we have to come back and play -- because that part is unbelievable as well.

PAT: Unbelievable.

STU: His scientific argument is that she identifies. Well, that's not science.

PAT: That's not science. Now you're talking feelings. You're not talking science.

STU: As you said, they're replicating it. She's identifying. You're laying it out -- subconsciously, you're saying the truth. You can't help yourself. You can't help yourself. You keep saying the truth.

PAT: I can identify as a gerbil, if I want to, but I'm not. I'm not one. And I won't fit into the little thing with the wheel that goes -- spins around and around. So...

STU: Right. And any other circumstance, this argument would be completely bizarre.

BLOG

Welcome to Torch. EVERYTHING is about to CHANGE...

Everything changes January 5th

Torch.

Light the Way. Seek Truth. Choose Life.

Beyond politics, beyond cultural chaos, beyond the overstimulation of our digital age lie eternal truths that bind us to our forefathers and light the path to a good, meaningful life. Yet cycles of rage and division exhaust us, leaving us depressed, disconnected, and without purpose.

But there is another way.

Torch—Glenn Beck’s bold new venture—builds on his legacy from Fox News and TheBlaze to ignite a deeper moral and spiritual renewal among Americans weary of digital distractions. Torch plants seeds in mind and soul, strengthening America’s moral spine through self-directed education in history, liberty, faith, philosophy, and personal responsibility. It empowers individuals to live joyfully in the present while embracing eternal truths—even when unpopular. At its heart is a revolutionary digital and physical museum featuring the world’s largest private collection of early American artifacts, offering immersive, unfiltered access to our founding story. Alongside more exclusive and intimate access to Glenn, Torch Insiders are empowered with an expansive library of original documentaries, explosive specials, podcasts, articles, lessons, guides, and a vibrant community of truth-seekers equipped to do the good work that uplifts us all—together.

Coming January 2026.

More news coming soon!

Enter your email above and return here often to remain updated on all the latest Torch developments.

RADIO

Could Trump’s “warrior dividends” CHANGE the economy?

President Trump has announced he is giving our troops “warrior dividends” of $1,776 each from the money raised by his tariffs. Glenn and Stu debate whether this is a good idea. Also…what are the odds that the Republicans will cave on Obamacare subsidies?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So something the president said yesterday, that I thought was really, really good. Because it will make a difference. And it's not a redistribution of wealth. He talked about his warrior dividend.

He said, every -- the 1.45 million military personnel are going to receive $1,776 before Christmas. And he says, it's recognition for their service and sacrifice.

He says, it's one time. It's coming from tariffs because of the big, beautiful bill. Tonight, I'm proud to announce, more than 1.45 million service members will receive a special we call warrior dividend. Warrior dividend in honor of our nation's founding in 1776. We're sending every soldier $1,776. The checks are already on the way.

I think this is better than choosing another group of people. You know, who is poor? And let's give them the money. I don't like when the government hands out money. But if anybody -- I mean, they're already on the payroll, and they're underpaid. And if anybody can use it, it's the military. $1,700 is a huge amount for most people in the military. Gigantic amount. That will make an actual impact in the people's lives, who I think actually deserve. You know, we -- we don't do enough for our military. And so it's the best kind of -- I don't know. Stimulus package I've ever seen. Although, this isn't a stimulus package, I don't think. Even though, these people are going to pump it into -- I can guarantee you, they will get it, and they will use it on their family for Christmas. Which, you know, will stimulate the economy so much.
Warrior Dividends. How did you feel about that, Stu?

STU: A bit conflicted for a few reason. I obviously 100 percent agree with you that our military members deserve more money, and I'm excited they're going to get it. And I have no -- my feeling on that from a general perspective is very, very positive. Like, if we're going to give money to anybody.
GLENN: Likewise.

STU: Our military is great.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: So that's obvious.

But I had a couple of concerns. One being, you know, we're not exactly at a place where we just have tons of extra money lying around to -- you know, to throw around to people.

I know the argument is with tariffs that we have enough. But, of course, that only pays for a slight amount of our deficit, right know

So we still -- this is all money that we don't actually have. Number one. And number two, my -- I don't really understand. Maybe you have a better understandings of this. But like my understanding of the mechanism of how we spent money as the government is that Congress passes a bill to allocate money.

When you're talking about a policy like this. And I think the president's heart.

GLENN: You got rid of that under Obama.

STU: I don't think.

Well, I didn't get rid of it.

GLENN: You did. Congress. I know. It's still the law of the land.

But nobody is paying attention to it anymore.

Congress doesn't even pay attention to it anymore.

They don't seem to care.

STU: And the other thing with this part of it, particularly, Glenn. Is quite obviously, there would be very little resistence to a bill that did this.

If you put a bill in front of Congress that said, we're going to give a bonus of $1,776 to all our military members. I would love to do it, just to dare the Democrats to vote against it.

Take all the concerns out about spending. This obviously would pass. Because no one would have the balls to vote against it. Outside of Rand Paul, and Thomas Massie.

Like, there would be a couple people. But it would be pretty limiteds.

GLENN: Right.

GLENN: So it could have gone through the normal processes. I don't know if Trump is saying, I want to be -- I want to dare someone to try to stop me here.

Or if it's just, look, there's a pile of money in a military budget somewhere. That he can move around. And he has control of it, because he's commander-in-chief.

I don't really understand the mechanisms.

So I have some questions of that. Generally speaking, when you're thinking of the most offensive things that the government does, giving our military more money is nowhere near the top of that list.

GLENN: It's not one. It's not it. Not it. Not it. They deserve it. They deserve it.

Now, the Republicans pass something. I love this. They just passed their health care plan.
Which is just staying with Obamacare without re-upping the insurance part of it. So they're not for the subsidies. It's not going to pass. It's not going to pass.

This is just something that they pass in the House. It will not be passed in the Senate. Not going to go to the President's desk.

Here's what's going to happen: You're going to see the House and the Senate. No. No, no. Let me rephrase that.

I started that with a lie. While you're not paying attention this Christmas, you will not see, but it will happen, anyway, the House and the Senate will re-up the insurance subsidies, and they will pass this health care thing while nobody is paying attention. And then it will be over.

I mean, that's exactly what's going to happen. There's not a chance we come back and on January 5th, and we say, oh, my gosh. Look! Wow. They're going to close down the government. Because they didn't pass this health care thing.

Well, good for the Republicans for having a spine and standing up!

No! Not going to happen. Not going to happen

STU: It does appear, the chance of the Republicans folding here, is approaching 1 trillion percent.

I don't know. We're having major inflation numbers.

GLENN: I would say 38 trillion. 38 trillion percent.

Yeah.

STU: There you go. I don't know. Because basically what has happened is enough Republicans have already folded on this, for a three-year extension of the subsidies. Which again, is a giveaway on top of the normal Obamacare to make it Obamacare turbo and lock in even higher subsidies because the old Obamacare plan failed. So that's what we're talking about here. So going back to Obamacare as passed is now the worst thing in the world to even the Democrats. Fascinating!

But they have enough Republicans who have changed sides on this. And they are now -- the Democrats have enough votes to force a vote on this bill, which almost definitely will pass the House. Because they already have the votes, and others Republicans will want to now change sides, if there's a public vote. So it will likely pass there.

It's the possible, obviously, that they stop it in the Senate. They could stop it in the Senate.

I don't know. I don't think there's much appetite to stop this, honestly, at the end of the day.

You know, you probably will have a chance of doing it, at the Senate. That's the best chance.

My guess is, what happens. Once the pressure is there, they find a way to maybe adjust it and do a year or something like that, that gets them past the election.

But, of course, what happens this a year. We all know what happens in a year. It's the same thing that will happen this year.It the same thing that happened four years ago, when the first part of this bill went away.

In 2022. Or 2021. They came in and said, okay. Let's extend it for four more years. My guess is, there will probably be some adjustments to this plan. I don't expect at all, for Republicans to hold the line this. Not only do they not want to get rid of Obamacare. They don't even want to get rid of Obamacare turbo. They passed this thing yesterday, which does give them the argument to say, hey. We did pass some of it.

We do have a plan, it's right here. But that's all of it.

GLENN: Stu. Understand the reality. Understand the reality.

We can't get things done unless we have the House and the Senate and the White House and the Supreme Court.

So we just have to wait until we have a time when -- what?

STU: Glenn, I have breaking news.
We've got all that! We've got all of that right now.
GLENN: Well, but it's not. Yeah. It's not as big as we need it, really.

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: We have to have the House, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. But we have to have more than what we said, when we said those things.

We just need those -- you know, all three branches of government. We need all three branches of government, but more.

It's like we need -- we need that turbo, kind of like Obamacare turbo.

It's never quite enough to get the job done.

STU: Never is, Glenn.

I really do expect, if we have a nine-zero Supreme Court, the presidency, and 534 combined Congress men and senators, we can't do this with this guy over here. There's one Democrat in Congress. We can't do this! That's exactly what I would expect.

GLENN: Stand in the way.

STU: It's pathetic. But it reminds you that your goals are not their goals.

You know, that's what -- I keep coming back to. Forever, Glenn when we started this show. I started the show very young. I was in my early 20s. Didn't really understand lots of things. I was unfortunately running from you, which obviously turned into a catastrophe.

But, you know, as I learned here, at the beginning, my thought was, us as conservatives, as Republicans, as the right, agree on a lot of different things. And there are disagreements as to how we get there, right?

There are sometimes people think we need to kind of fold, or we need to compromise. And we have to move slowly.

And some other people there, saying, we have to go all the way right now.

And there's that disagreement. You remember this from going back in history. Right? Slavery was like this.

There were some people who were like, abolish, abolish, abolish. And others were like, gosh, I don't think we can do that. We have to finagle. We have to work around the edges.

Every big debate has had that.

What I've learned is that actually the goals are the same. When we are saying, hey, we need to make sure government is more -- is smaller, more limited. That's not the goal of most of the people. On, quote, unquote, our side in Washington.

GLENN: Nope.

STU: They don't share those goals. So they're working for something completely different.

They're not going to what we want, as -- as a typical American conservative.

We're inching towards some of those goals.

But also, when we need to give up on them. They go the opposite direction to keep these guys in office for a couple of years. Fine!

And that's what's really frustrating here.

GLENN: So let me give you some good news. And then I'll -- and I'll spoil it for you.

But some good news. The House has just passed legislation that makes performing transgender surgeries on minors a felony. Now, here's the bad news: It passed 216 to 211.

That means, really, there are 211 Democrats that actually in their heart of hearts think that cutting into minors, cutting the breasts off. At this point, now that we have all the data that we have gathered over, you know, five years of doing this to children. At this point, there's 211 that firmly believe, yeah, no. Damn it. We should cut off the breasts. The healthy breasts off of a healthy minor. We've got to make those -- we've got to make those decisions. And a 12-year-old make that decision. A 15-year-old should make that decision.

Really? No!

It's just politics. And if they do think they believe it, they believe it because they've been party brainwashed. You know, how many of us, on any -- on any and all sides, how many of us actually believe something and have thought it through, and how many of us are just kind of zombie following the crowd?

I contend most people are just zombies following the crowd.

Whether -- that might be a crowd now of, you know what, Charlie Kirk was killed by his wife!

There's all kinds of zombie crowds. And they don't require you to think at all.
They just require you to sign up for the team. And that's -- that's my biggest problem with the Republicans. Is I'm not on a team.

You know, when I left Fox, Roger Ailes said to me, you know what your problem is? And I said, no. But I know you're going to tell me.

What's my problem?

He said, you won't play the game. He said, you know, there's -- there are well-established rules. If you need a pound of flesh, you take a pound of flesh from me.

But then you owe me a pound of flesh. So when I need a pound of flesh, I'm going to come and take it out of you. And then we go out, and we have dinner with each other.

And I was just astounded that that was actually spoken out loud. And I said, see, here's the problem: I don't believe it is a game.

I actually believe in something. And -- and I thought more people believed in something.

Don't you feel like you just want somebody to go in, like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and actually believe in something!

And then when they find out, wait a minute. I've been duped like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

They stand up and say, this is wrong!

And I'm not playing that game. And I don't want to play that game. And you kind of, again, there's so many hoops you have to jump through, for this to happen.

Then you actually have to believe that there are other people in the Congress and the Senate, that are like, you know what, he's brave enough to say it. I'm going to stand up next to him.

I mean,, oh, I remember when I was young and naive. And I believed those things would happen.

I still believe they can happen.

But only when the American people return to common sense and demand it.

RADIO

"It’s a Wonderful Life" - The Amazing UNTOLD Story of the Classic Christmas Movie

It’s a Wonderful Life wasn’t always a beloved classic — in fact, it was a complete failure that nearly destroyed the careers of Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart. Glenn Beck reveals how a forgotten film, resurrected only because its copyright lapsed, became one of the most meaningful stories in American culture. Through George Bailey’s quiet sacrifices, the movie teaches us that the true measure of a life is often invisible, discovered only through the small acts of faithfulness and love we give along the way. This timeless reminder — that ordinary people can change the world without ever seeing the ripples — is why the film still breaks our hearts, heals our spirits, and reassures us that we mattered.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me tell you a story that you think you already know. It's about a movie that feels like it's been there our whole lives. It's like a tree in the town square and the hymn. You don't remember learning, but somehow you know it by heart. But this particular movie hasn't been around forever, it just seems like it. It was actually born out of failure. It was born out of exhaustion.

And it was born out of people who felt just like its lead character, George Bailey.

It's a Wonderful Life has a fascinating story behind it. And it speaks volumes about us, our hopes, our fears, our desires.

The movie was made by Frank Capra, and it was right after World War II. Frank Capra had just come back. He didn't come home triumphant. He came home a changed man.

He had spent the war making film for the United States government. The war department.

About why the west is worth saving. This film series. They're fantastic. It's called Why We Fight.

And when he returned, his old style of doing things, the old machinery just didn't fit Hollywood anymore. So he started his own studio. He bet absolutely everything on it.

And It's a Wonderful Life was supposed to be the movie, that proved Frank Capra is still Frank Capra. And it nearly ruined him. The movie lost money. Critics really didn't like it. They mocked how schmaltzy it was. Audiences stayed home.

Jimmy Stewart, this was his first movie that he made, when he came back home from the war. And this was his start. And between Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart. Oh, my gosh, you've got a massive hit, right?

Nobody came. Nobody watched it. Jimmy Stewart, the most beloved man in America gave a really raw, shaken, almost too real performance for people at the time. He wasn't the cheerful hero that is coming out of war as a victory.

This was a man that was cracking under the weight of responsibility. A man who did everything right, but he still felt like he was a failure.

Any of this sound familiar?

It was a story about what happened during the Depression and the crash of '29. Well, America had been living that forever!

They had been living that since '29. They went through the long Depression.

Then they went through the war. The first thing, out of war, they don't want to watch a movie about how depressing life can be. Okay?

So it was a total failure. Film disappears. Goes into a vault. It's a noble misfire.

Good idea. It just didn't land. Maybe wrong time. Eh. Maybe too schmaltzy. Then something weird happened, everybody forgot about it. And so the rights lapsed. There was no grand relaunch. There was no marketing genius, just a legal oversight that let the rights lapse.

Enter Ted Turner.

Ted Turner and Super Station TBS. Remember Super Station TBS when he bought a bunch of stations across the country, and he tied them all together.

And then cable came in, and Super Station TBS became TBS. Turner, while he was looking on super station TBS. They needed some holiday programming. And they needed it cheap. And when I say cheap, what they -- what Ted really meant was tree. We need a bunch of free programming, that we can run all Christmas.

Okay?

No rights. No royalties.

What is out there?

The vaults opened up, and lo and behold, they find It's a Wonderful Life.

Suddenly, it appears in our life, and I don't know about you. I always thought it had been around forever. It did seem like it was a new relaunch.
It was like, hey, did you hear about this new movie?

It was just there and on. We thought everybody knew about it. Nobody knew about it. Our grandparents probably didn't know we knew about it, because it was a massive failure. It's on afternoons, late nights. It's on mornings.

It's everywhere. It's everywhere. Black and white snow flickering on the living rooms. As we are playing on the floor. We as the adults are half listening, half watching. And slowly, slowly, its message found us.

It found us this time, because America had changed.

We weren't fresh from it despair. And we weren't fresh from victory anymore.

We weren't those people. It wasn't so close to us, that we didn't want to look at us!
Yes, we were tired. We were busy. We were stretched thin.

But we were also a group now that measured our lives in promotions. And in square footage. And bank balances.

We were starting to become a little Mr. Potter-like. And we didn't want to be Mr. Potter.

And there on the screen is George Bailey, standing on the bridge, wondering, would the world be better without me? He's not a villain. He's not a loser.

He's actually a really good man.
He's the best of us. And that's why it still works.

Think of all the happy endings and all we have, and everything else. And all of the stories that we tell ourselves.

This movie doesn't tell you, that life will turn out the way you planned.

This one tells you something much, much harder. That the measure of your life is probably going to be invisible to you, while you're living your life.

Because Clarence ain't coming down in his 1800s clothing, and having a hot toddy with you.

So you probably won't know the real measure of your life. And the biggest victories in your life don't come with applause. And the sacrifice, it usually doesn't feel heroic at the moment. It just feels like sacrifice. And crap. Why me. Why me?
Why don't I ever get the adventure that I planned my whole life? Remember, George never left Bedford Falls. He never becomes famous. He just stays. And he shows up. And he keeps his promises. And he holds people together.

What is the real -- what's the real miracle of the film?

Because it's not Clarence. It's not the bells.

It's not him getting his life back. The real miracle is the ledger. That's the miracle. The names, the faces, the small kindness, you all stacked you up, one on top of each other, until you realize, oh, my gosh. All of those little acts, they amount to a life that actually mattered. We're all looking for the big splashy -- he didn't get any of those. He didn't get that.

And that's why he felt like he was a failure. That's why when the town shows up in the end, and they're all giving just a few dollars, it breaks us every single time. Because deep down, we're not watching George Bailey. Deep down, we're checking our own books, our own ledger. Did I? Do I matter to anybody? Would I be missed? Do the things I gave up -- the things I really wanted to do in life, but because something else came up. I had to serve, I had to do this for my kids. Or I had to do this -- the things I gave up, does it mean anything?

This film answers it with a whisper. It doesn't shout it. It whispers.

You'll never fully know the good you've done. I can't give you an answer. You'll never know it. You'll never see the ripples while you're standing in the water.

But they're there. Believe me, they're there.

So this year, when you either just have it running, while you're all in the kitchen. And you're watching time to time. Oh, I love this part. I love this part.

And everybody gets quiet and you just curl on the couch and watch it again, remember, you're not watching a Christmas movie.

What you're watching is a reminder that life doesn't have to be loud to be important.

That staying can be braver than leaving. That loving your family and your neighbors and your town, imperfect as it is, that's not settling.

It's choosing. And whether Ted Turner knew it or not, I can guarantee you, that Jimmy Stewart did. And Frank Capra certainly did.

That every time you see that, why we, year after year, when the snow starts falling in that old piano theme play as we comes back. Not for the nostalgia. But for the reassurance.

Because every once in a while, all of us need somebody just to look us in the eye and say, you're here!

You mattered.

And it is a wonderful life.

RADIO

How Trump TRICKED the media with his presidential address

President Trump recently addressed the nation about his administration’s many accomplishments over its first year. Glenn Beck reviews the best moments of the speech, as well as some moments he doesn’t believe will age well. Plus…did Trump trick the media into playing his highlight reel by making them think he would declare war with Venezuela?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last night, the President spoke, and, you know, he started out.

It was -- it was -- let me give you the overall first. I've never seen him more disciplined.

I think the speech was like, I don't know. It was over by 20 minutes after. And I think he ran six minutes late. I mean, I've never seen -- he doesn't say hello in less than 20 minutes.

He stayed on script the whole time. He was extraordinarily disciplined. He was forceful with it. And he explained what has been done in the last year. And he started out saying, a year ago, our country was dead. Now we're the hottest country. We're the hottest country in the world right now. Nobody has ever seen anything like it.

He said, you know, when he took -- when he took over, inflation was the worst in 48 years.

Caused prices to be higher than ever. Making life unaffordable for millions of Americans. And he said, over the past 11 months, we brought more positive change to Washington than any administration in American history.

Never been anything like it.

He talked about successfully negotiating $18 trillion of investments into the country.

And he said, but the real problem for most Americans was under Biden, car prices rose 22 percent in many states. He said, 30 percent or more. Gasoline rose 30 to 50 percent.

Hotel rates raised 37 percent. Airfare rose 31 percent. And he said, they're all coming down. They're coming down fast. Faster than anybody expected. Drugs, brought by ocean and sea are now down by 94 percent. He said, we broke the grip of sinister woke radicals in our schools.

I restored American strength, settled eight wars in ten months, destroyed the Iran nuclear threat. And ended a war in Gaza, bringing for the first time in 3,000 years, peace to the Middle East.
Then he talked about, you know, what's coming next!

Now, here are my thoughts on this: You know, everybody was speculating, he's going to say we're going to war. What would give you that impression?

I mean, he doesn't -- that is the very last resort. And we are not out of tricks with Venezuela.

I don't think we're going to war with Venezuela.

I think he's making it look like we're going to war, to freak Venezuela out.

And to get Maduro out.

I don't think we're going into war.

I hope we're not. I could be wrong.

But I just don't think that's his deal.

Everybody is speculating, he will announce we're going to war.

No. He's not.

However, is it possible that they were leaking this?

Because I saw this as the kickoff of the campaign. I saw this as okay. This is the message for 2026 for the Republicans.

And it was so disciplined and -- and so tight. You know, he gets -- when the president calls a speech at night and says, he wants to address the nation be, the networks are asked to carry it.

Sometimes they don't. They don't have to. But if he said, look, I only need 20 minutes, I'm sure that everybody at NBC. I mean, I did. Rolled my eyes. Yeah. It will be 20 minutes.

It will be an hour and 20 minutes. But it was tight and focused in 20 minutes.

I wonder if the war thing wasn't a way to get them to cover this.

If -- if it wasn't a leak from the White House. You know, I think he might. I think he might announce war tonight. Then everybody will cover it. I don't know.

Maybe that's me being too sinal. I don't know. Can you be too cynical at this point?

Here's the thing. He said a couple of things that I didn't think will serve him well. And it's only because -- and I think you feel the same way.

I know I'm sick of it. And I've been reporting on it since the beginning of Obama.

And I hated it when Obama was doing it. And he did it for eight years. Biden did it for four years.

And here's the line: I inherited a mess. I inherited trouble. I'm cleaning up somebody else's mess.

True. It's absolutely true. It wasn't with Biden.

It kind of was with Obama, at the beginning.

But, you know, when you're seven years into it. You haven't cleaned that up yet?

I mean, you've got to get a bigger mop. But it's definitely true under Donald Trump. However, people have heard that now from the last three presidents.

And they're tired of it. It has no meaning anymore. Even though it's true.

And I want to go back to truth here in a second. The other thing that I don't think will serve him well is the economy is doing better than ever.

You're going to love it. It's great. People are not -- that might be true!

In my opinion, it's not. It is doing much, much better.

I mean, you know, you -- you had -- what was it?

Twenty-five percent. Thirty percent inflation added to everything? You've got to go into negative inflation to be able to get those prices down. They're going to be up there. And what's happening is, we still are adding 2 percent inflation. And that's the target. I don't know why we put up with that target, but that's the target.

So you'll have 2 percent price increases every year. Now, we're at 3 percent. We get the numbers out today.

It might go into the twos. Are they out yet?

STU: Yeah. 2.7, the number out today.

GLENN: 2.7 that's great.

STU: Yeah, it's better. It's going the right direction. They say part of that might be because the government shutdown, so we're not sure how long that lasts, but positive movement anyway.

GLENN: Yeah, so that's fantastic! So coming down to 2.7. Remember, we were at 9, and it was compounding year after year after year.

So he is bringing things down. And the price of some things like gasoline and eggs. And some of the stuff you get at the grocery, are way down. They're not back to where they were in 2016. Or 2020.

Because, I mean, he's just trying to stop the inflation.
So what's happening, and this is what I say, will serve him well is, there was this great marketing book out in the '80s called Positioning the Battlefields of Your Mind -- or, Battleground of Your Mind.

And it was a book that led to the Cola Wars. It was the understanding of the Cola Wars and how Pepsi could beat Coca-Cola.

They had to change the perception. And the perception was, that Coca-Cola was it!

And Pepsi had to change it, and that's why they became the choice of a new generation. And for a while, Pepsi was -- it may have even beaten Coke.

But there was this real Cola War back and forth the whole time. They didn't change the flavors. They didn't change anything.

Pepsi was what Pepsi always had been. Coca-Cola was what Coca-Cola had always been.

They needed to change the perception, okay? Because perception, whether it's true or not, perception is reality.

Whatever people perceive, and feel, is their reality.

So it's the reality that you have to deal with.

People don't feel the relief yet. They see the prices coming down. But they're still paying out the same amount of money that they were paying out under Joe Biden.

It's not getting worse. Except, by 2.7 percent overall.

But it's -- it's not getting better to them. You know, certain categories are.

But overall, you're still struggling with your rent and everything else!

And so people's perception is: It -- it's not what I expected. Because what I expected was 2019!

I expected to have jobs and the economy rolling. And the price of housing coming down. And everything else.

And it's not.

So what's not going to serve him well is saying, "Your perception is wrong." He might be right! It doesn't matter! You can't tell people their perception is wrong. You have to change that perception.

And the only way to really change it is to demonstrate it, or through ads, you know, back in the Cola War era, they just changed slogans and do ads and everything else. But people don't buy slogans anymore. They don't buy ads anymore. They don't even trust logos anymore. So that won't work.

You actually have to change people's lives to change their perception. Now, 25 percent last month said that they felt that their personal finances were doing better. That was last month. Or the month before last.

This last month, it's up to 27 percent.

So he's moving that in the right direction. But to win, you've got to be over 40 percent.

Easy over 40 percent have to feel like their personal finances are getting better. 27 percent is not enough. But it is moving in the right direction.

So when the president says he's got to relate to the people who steal -- who have defended him, liked him, and believe in him, he's got to say, I know you're feeling the pinch.

You know, one of the things he said last night. But I don't think it's connected yet to people.

And it's because it's absolutely true. Why do you think that you are spending more every month for your rent?

Why?

You're spending more on rent, because there's too many people chasing too few houses and apartments.

You cannot add ten to 15 million people in four years, while you're not building things. You can't add 10 million people into your country and say, oh, by the way. Go get housing.

Where are they going to get the housing?

The housing, you're going to have a shortage, which will cause the prices to go up.

So until you get rid of those 10 million people. You're not going to lower the price.

And especially if the government is subsidizing them.

Because, I mean, look at the NGOs. If people know, the government will pay. They will keep the price up. What would happen with NGOs. Look what's happening with universities. Why do you think universities are so expensive?

They weren't like that. Until the government said, we will guarantee the loans. Once the government said, we'll guarantee the loans, prices went true the roof because everybody could get a loan!

That's the problem. He's got to connect this, and I think he started last night. He's done it a few times. But somewhere or another, it's really got to connect with the American people.
You cannot solve the housing crisis and not solve the immigration crisis. You have to send people back home, or you're going to have to wait five years, as we build new apartment complexes and new buildings. And we stabilize under these ten million new homes that were needed.

That's not popular. And nobody is going to wait that long. Somehow or another, he's got to make that point. And it's got to connect with people, to give him more time to turn things around, on the housing.

Now, he also was really strong in saying that he was appointing -- wait until you meet the guy to appoint the head of the Fed.

Well, I would like to meet that person too. I would like to know who that is. He said he will do it right after the first of the year. Because our Fed chair is leaving, after the first of the year in February. And he said he's a guy who understands low interest rates. And, you know, low mortgage rates, looser money. That could be really dangerous with -- with inflation, but we'll see.

But that could be a turning point, one way or the other, a new Fed chair will be a new turning point.

And hopefully, Trump and this new Fed chair know what they're doing, and it won't make things worse.

But I don't know how you can with the Fed. I mean, they've already made everything so bad.

Glenn's Show Prep

Concessions of a Transgendered Wrestler

Welcome to Torch. EVERYTHING is about to CHANGE...

Everything changes January 5th

Torch.

But there is another way.

Could Trump’s “warrior dividends” CHANGE the economy?

Transcript

"It’s a Wonderful Life" - The Amazing UNTOLD Story of the Classic Christmas Movie

Transcript

How Trump TRICKED the media with his presidential address

Transcript