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

Paul Ryan and the GOP Make Lindsey Graham Look Like Benjamin Franklin

May 04, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Well, it looks like Republicans are going to pull a Nancy Pelosi with the Obamacare replacement bill. We'll have to pass it to see exactly what's in it. If only we'd elected someone who promised to drain the swamp, destroy the GOP, tear the system down and get the weasels out. Oh wait, we did.

Unfortunately, Trump has failed to deliver on many of his promises --- and it won't be Paul Ryan and the GOP holding his feet to the fire.

"I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're like, 'Oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham.' Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now . . . Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse," Glenn said Thursday on radio.

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 4:10 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America. Glad you're here. So the Republicans are looking to pass the new health care bill, and I like the fact that we all know all about it, we've had a chance to debate the bill and talk about it, and they're not just jamming it down and jamming it through.

PAT: No and yes.

GLENN: Look at how twisted he is. No and yes. Which one is it?

STU: Make up your mind, moron.

GLENN: Right. Moron. Moron. Moron. Why do you hate people so much, moron?

Anyway, so we're going to pass it, and we don't really know what's in it, except they're going to cut back on some of it, which will make it even better.

PAT: Well, I think what the Republicans are kind of saying is they're going to get this done, even if they have to pole vault over it, if they have to parachute into it, if they have to bulldoze through it, they're gonna get it done. And then when they get it passed, then we're going to find out what's in it. I mean, shut up.

GLENN: Well, we do know this.

PAT: Right? I'm with you guys now.

GLENN: Make America great. So here's the thing. We're going to -- apparently, this is -- because I've heard this in the media. This is the biggest transfer of wealth in American history.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, wow. That's great.

STU: That's great.

GLENN: They didn't say that when they were taking money from people who were working and then giving it directly to the poor for their health care. That was not -- that was social justice. This now taking the money from the people who have jobs and not giving it to the poor but allowing those people who have jobs to maybe keep a couple of extra dollars that they already earned, that's a transfer of wealth. You're transferring the wealth not from the rich to the poor but you're not transferring it --

PAT: No, you're taking it from the poor, and you're giving it to the wealthiest among us who don't need it.

STU: A huge tax cut for the rich. This is illegitimate their argument. You're not making this up. They're saying as of a few years ago, money was earned by people, and then they passed a bill where the money they earned had to be given to someone else.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

PAT: And, by the way. One of the architects of the program said it must be that way.

STU: It must be that way.

PAT: That a health care plan that was fair and just and right must, must redistribute wealth.

GLENN: By the way, it's not just somebody who was part of it, it was the head guy.

PAT: Donald Berwick.

GLENN: Yeah. It was the head guy of ObamaCare. So it was about redistribution of wealth. But, no, everybody called us racists by pointing that out, using their own words. But now the press is saying this is the biggest transfer of wealth of all time. This is a horrible, horrible thing. They're right. Not about the, you know, transfer of wealth. They're right about this is a horrible, horrible thing because all this is going to do is weaken things. First of all, it started out as a 5 billion-dollar pool for those with existing conditions. Well, no. $5 billion? That's going to cover everybody with existing conditions? Probably not. Okay. So we're going to really bulk down, says the Republicans. What we're going to do is we're going to ask for $8 billion. Exactly like Dr. Evil would do. Okay, then it is $8 billion?

CBO estimates, and they don't have anything out on this officially yet. But it will take five times that amount. Could be $50 billion to be able to cover preexisting conditions. Now, if that's what the CBO says, you can guarantee it is at least five to ten times what the CBO says because they always have it wrong. So they're going to take more money and put it into the existing conditions. And the Republicans will say, yes, but at least we're not going to collapse the insurance companies. Yes, you will. You'll be able to find a way to collapse. Believe me. We have no doubt that you can collapse the free-market system.

Make no mistake, the reason why the Heritage Foundation was targeted, remember, if it wasn't for Jim DeMint, you wouldn't have Neil Gorsuch as your Supreme Court justice. You would not have them. It was Jim DeMint that put that list together, that pushed that list, that made sure Donald Trump stayed on that list, and that's why we have Neil Gorsuch. They took him out because the Heritage Foundation at the time was saying "No, this health care bill is just as bad. Maybe it's a little bit better, but this isn't what the American people wanted.

So just like Obama, we have to watch what this administration see what the other hand is doing. They told us we're coming after the Freedom Caucus. But instead, what they did is we were rallying around the Freedom Caucus, they took out and took out the Heritage Foundation. Now the Heritage Foundation is in the clutches of the Steve Bannons of the world and the Lindsey Grahams who strangely makes more sense now than people like Paul Ryan. When -- I mean, at first, we liked Paul Ryan. Then we're, like, oh, he's a dirtbag, but at least he's not Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham looks like Ben Franklin compared to the GOP now. That's how far out -- Lindsey Graham hasn't gotten better. The GOP has gotten worse.

So now what they're going to do is they're going to pass this thing and strong arm everybody to vote for it, as Pat said, Nancy Pelosi said during the ObamaCare debacle, we're going to pole vault over the wall, we're gonna drop in, parachute in, we're going to do whatever we have to do, and that's exactly what they're going to do.

STU: Is there room for the argument? And some Republicans are making it, that we all know whatever the house passes. Let's say they pass the perfect health care plan, it's going to go to the senate, and the senate is going to do something completely different, and they're going to have to come together at the end anyway. So is it worth getting something through? You're going to have to go through this process later on anyway with the senate. Get it through, and figure out if you can come up with something good with the senate, and then you'll be able to vote on that. Is it not worth advancing this so at least there's --

GLENN: No, it's not to at least do anything because it's going to collapse, and anything you do ... then the whole damn thing is blamed on you just in time for the Democrats to ride in on their Marxist horse and say "See? They screwed it up. Made it worse. We have to go single pair health care."

STU: What do you do, though? Nothing?

GLENN: No, what you do is you fix the damn thing. You actually fix and allow it to be free market.

STU: But the reality is --

GLENN: That's not going to happen.

STU: The reality is that it's not going to --

GLENN: Yeah, I know that.

STU: So why not advance something? And you're going to have to have this negotiation at the end anyway.

GLENN: You know what? There's -- because there's nobody with a spine, I guess, you know, I could look at that and say, well, I'm paying taxes. I would rather have less taxes take from me for something that I know is a disaster and destroying health care. But at least I'm paying less for it.

STU: So what you're advocating for, seemingly, is a massive transfer of wealth from your paycheck back to you.

GLENN: Yes. I am.

STU: Can you believe this guy? He's saying it out loud. He wants his own money.

PAT: Selfishness. Selfish. Selfish.

STU: Selfish, what a jerk. In reality, I don't know what you do here. I would not want to vote for this. It's a disaster, and it's getting worse by the day. However, with this process the way it is, with the people in office that are in office, I don't know if you just take a 5 percent gain, and it's -- hey, it's 5 percent better than ObamaCare, so take it and go. And maybe you'll have a few years of 5 percent better until the whole thing blows up anyway because keeping ObamaCare, if it's going to blow up with this plan, it's going to blow up with ObamaCare too. It's just a matter of who you're blaming it on. So do you sit here and not do anything?

GLENN: No, because they'll blame that on you. "You knew that ObamaCare wasn't working, and you refused to do anything."

STU: You're going to get blamed either way. We all know this.

GLENN: You know what would have been nice? Man, we should have thought of this. If we would have had somebody that -- what is it? Oh, had principles. If we just had somebody that had principles, you know, because don't get me wrong. This guy, this president, he's going to be able to go in there and is going to be able to destroy the GOP, tear the system down, he's going to get the weasels out, he's going to get those things done, and he can beat the media, and that's why he's going to be able to do it because he doesn't care about the media, and he doesn't care about losses.

So he's going to be able to get that done.

STU: He can certainly have talked his way through the Civil War but not this. Not a GOP congress and repealing.

GLENN: Yes. Right. Right.

STU: That's too high of a hill.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But certainly would have solved the slavery thing by a little talking if he was around.

PAT: Just exactly like Andrew Jackson did.

GLENN: No, but he didn't.

PAT: No, he did. He fixed all Civil War.

GLENN: And he had a gigantic plantation down in the south. I don't know if anybody noises that. But he had a giant plantation. Of course, he didn't have it when he got into office. He was poor when he got into office, and then he just started taking the land from the Indians, the Native Americans, and he would tell his friends. He set up a little kind of offshore real estate company, and he would look at the map after inviting his friends to the White House and say "And, by the way, I'm about to release all of this land. You might go have it appraised. And then when I release it, the first in the title office, and I had nothing to do with this." That's how he bought his mansion. He left -- he came in poor, and he left one of the wealthiest presidents of all time.

PAT: You have to admire, though, how he broke every promise to the Indians. You have to admire that.

GLENN: You do. You really do.

PAT: You have to say --

GLENN: Well, he had a big heart.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: Huge.

PAT: Huge heart.

GLENN: And he was so upset about slavery, he could have solved it. He was a soldier in the south. I mean, what soldiers in the south back then weren't against slavery?

STU: Well, I didn't say he was going to solve it that way. Maybe he was going to solve it by keeping it. We just said that he was going to solve the problem. We didn't say slavery was going to go away.

GLENN: Yeah, solve the problems of the Civil War.

STU: Civil War.

GLENN: You're right.

STU: Because people ask. Why does Civil War happen? We don't know. Who knows. There hasn't been any thought put into that. No historian has written a book about it. It's just basically someone flipped a coin and said we're going to war. Why do that?

GLENN: They didn't be need to.

PAT: They need to.

STU: That was one of the big issues at the time.

GLENN: Abraham Lincoln, he was more of a war monger. It was Andrew Jackson who was such a decent human being and sometimes the slaves would come in and wipe the tears from his eyes. He was such a good guy. And the Native Americans --

PAT: They loved him.

GLENN: And he loved them. He loved the kerosene lamps that he, the lamp shades made out of Native American skin. It was beautiful. And he had such a heart. And those lamps lit the way for American divine destiny and manifest destiny.

STU: A lot of people blame the Trail of Tears on him and in reality, that was someone who littered and the Indian was looking over the hill and saw the litter and started crying. One tear.

GLENN: Yeah. And they were mixed with Andrew Jackson's tears. He was, like, you're bloodying up this property that I'm about to sell to my friends so that I can be the richest man in America by the end of my term. But who doesn't admire him?

From Pharaoh to Hamas: The same spirit of evil, new disguise

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

Evil wins when good people mirror its rage.

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

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

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

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

Ancient evil, new clothes

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

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

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

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

A time for choosing

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

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

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

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new currency of power

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

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

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

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

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

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

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

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

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

The forgotten way

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

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

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

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

Both are traps.

The only way

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

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

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

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.