The Pope's Gift to President Trump Might Make Your Head Explode

When Barack Obama gave the queen a collection of his own speeches as a gift, he set the bar pretty low for future Presidents. But what do you get the guy who has everything and wants nothing? Wednesday on radio, Glenn talked about the gifts President Donald Trump and Pope Francis exchanged.

"Donald Trump gave him a case of books from Martin Luther King," Glenn said.

Now, get out the duct tape. The gift the Catholic pontiff gave President Trump might make your head explode.

"The pope gave Donald Trump a medal by a Roman artist," Glenn said. "The pope also gave him three books: the 'Topics of Family,' the 'Joy of the Gospel,' and 'On the Care for Our Common Home,' (the environment)."

Glenn's radio co-host Pat Gray nearly lost it when he heard the pope gave Trump his encyclical on climate change.

"Ugh," Pat groaned.

Author Paul Kengor joined the program to discuss the visit and compare it to Ronald Reagan's first visit with John Paul II nearly 35 years ago to the week.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: Hello, America. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. The president has just left the pontiff. He was in Rome. The exchange books and exchange gifts. Now, the last president we had, remember his first tour? Oh, my -- remember he gave the queen a DVD, which she couldn't use in England, of all of his greatest speeches. We all are pretty sure that Donald Trump thinks highly of himself. Even Donald Trump didn't give a gift of all of his greatest gifts. So what did he give the pope? And who did the pope give him?

Meeting with the pontiff, we begin there, right now.


GLENN: So they get together. They exchange gifts. I mean, what do you get the pope? I mean, a guy who literally has everything. Oh, you got me a nice little statue. Good. Thank you, I'll put that over in my desk, right next to the Michelangelo. I mean, what do you get that guy, who has everything, including his own face on bottle openers?

PAT: I had an idea, but I --

STU: You thought better?

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Yeah, okay.

GLENN: You may not think better when you hear what the pope gave to Donald Trump.

STU: Because it's not only a guy who has everything, but also a guy who is outwardly telling you that material things don't matter.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: So where do you go?

GLENN: Correct. That's when you walk in and say, "Hey, pope, I just was thinking about you. And I thought, you know what, you don't want any material things. So I bought a little something for myself."


Okay. So Donald Trump gave him a case of books from Martin Luther King, and the pope gave Donald Trump a medal by Roman artist that said what that was, was an olive. I mean, when a Roman artist is making something for the president of the United States, you wonder, yeah, then how can it looks like a pile of crap? No, no. It's an olive. But he gave him an olive, a symbol of peace. And apparently the president said, "We can use peace." The pope also gave him three books: The Topics of Family, the Joy of the Gospel, and the Care of our Common Home, the environment.


GLENN: He then gave him --

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: And this is what is going to set Pat off. Look out, he's going to be screaming to the pope, "Get off my lawn."

He also gave him his encyclical on climate change.

PAT: Ugh.

GLENN: So hopefully -- hopefully that will help Donald Trump, you know, understand --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- that you got to do something on climate change.

PAT: And not just something, we need to spend -- well, according to the Al Gore group, 50 trillion. And according to that other group, 90 trillion, was it?

STU: Just the 90 trillion.

GLENN: Yeah.

Paul Kengor is with us. He's the author of a new book called A pope and a President. A Pope and a President. It's an amazing book. If you love Ronald Reagan, you have to buy this book and read it. A Pope and a President: Ronald Reagan and His Relationship with Pope John Paul.

Paul, welcome to the program. How are you, sir?

PAUL: Hey, good, guys. Great to be with you.

GLENN: Good. So what are your thoughts on the visit with Donald Trump and the pope?

PAUL: Well, you know, I was first struck at how different this is from Ronald Reagan and John Paul II, right? You know, to have -- with those two, when they first met, which was ironically 35 years ago almost to this exact week, when the two of them met at the Vatican for the first time --


PAUL: Yeah. That was June 1982. And, you know, those two went in with all sorts of commonalities. I mean, they agreed with the international situation, domestic situation. They both had been, you know, shot, the year before, and both miraculously survived these assassination attempts.

GLENN: They both agreed --

PAUL: So when they came together --

GLENN: They both agreed clearly on the definition of evil as well.

PAUL: They did. And to both of them, the one clear international threat was atheistic Soviet communism. And these two, as well, with Francis and Trump -- you know, they might agree that the dominant international threat is Islam, or radical Islam. But they don't, in any way, I think, share any sort of common mission on how to respond to it.

GLENN: Do you think that the pope -- hang on, where are you getting that the pope really understands radical Islam? I mean, he -- he seems to almost be towing the same line that you would hear from CNN.

PAUL: Right. Right. Yeah, he's been very, let's say, merciful, right? Which is a common word of his, being sort of the pope of mercy. He's been very charitable, merciful toward Islam. But I think, really, if pressed -- and I think he and Trump, from what I can tell, so far and what I've read about the meeting, I think they agreed, at least on the threat of Islam in terms of religious persecution. Because that seems to be an issue that was brought up at the Vatican between the two of them. But I think the difference, Glenn, is how would they respond to it, right? You know, how would they talk about it publicly? You're never going to have Pope Francis condemning radical Islam in the way that Trump did, or the way Trump has. Or referring to it in the kind of incendiary language that Trump has. So the difference is probably not necessarily on how they recognize the threat, but how they respond to it.

GLENN: So -- we're talking to Dr. Paul Kengor. He's the author of A Pope and A President: The Meeting Between John Paul -- and the friendship between John Paul and Ronald Reagan.

Here we have the guy who is probably the biggest -- he's almost a caricature of capitalism. And to somebody like Pope Francis, who grew up in South America, who is not favorable to capitalists at all, he must view Donald Trump as -- as everything that he stands against. And I just can't imagine -- what do you think the pope was -- what do you think the pope's message to him was, privately?

PAUL: That's a good question. Yeah, I don't know if they talked about that at all. The actual statement that came out from the Vatican -- I'm looking at it right now. Boy, it's not even maybe 100 to 200 words long. So there's hardly anything to it at all. And it says that they talked really about common areas of agreements, such as -- as it says, a commitment in favor of life. That would be unborn human life, I would think. Freedom of worship. Freedom of conscience.

And it also says that areas -- I think it says that they brought up immigration. They talked about the Middle East, the protection of Christian communities.

So I don't think he brought up any of his sort of, what's seen as anti-capitalist viewpoints from Pope Francis. I doubt they really talked economics much. I doubt they talked climate change much.

But as you guys mentioned, Glenn, that encyclical, it's called Laudato si', that addresses all of those topics. When he said -- when he gave that to Trump and two other statements -- and Trump actually said, "I'll read these," which is impressive for Trump because the guy hardly reads anything, right? I mean, he said he doesn't read books. These are -- and these are -- they're not quite book length. But I think Laudato si' is maybe, off the top of my head, 50 to 70 pages. So it's a pretty in-depth read. But it talks about economics, climate change, but it also talks about family. It talks about how, if we're going to care for God's creation, we need to not just care about the environment, we need to care about God's creation of the little ones in the womb, for example.

So there's still -- I mean, there are some pretty obvious areas of disagreement. But they also have some pretty important commonalities that I don't think people are giving them credit for.

GLENN: Has Donald Trump -- does anybody know -- has Donald Trump ever met with a pope before?

PAUL: I doubt he has, yeah.

GLENN: I'm just wondering, was this something that you think was moving or special to him in any way? As a guy who has done everything he's wanted for his whole life --

PAUL: Yeah, I think it was.

In fact, the CNN headline on this was very interesting. At, I think the title was something like, Trump tells Francis, "I won't forget what you said. I won't forget what you said." And there's something about the Vatican. You've been there.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAUL: I've been there. When you walk into St. Peter's Basilica, I mean, you can have an ego the size of Donald Trump, but all of a sudden, you're humbled by that environment. You know, you're humbled by -- by -- he apparently took a tour through the basilica, through the actual Vatican. They met, I think, in the Vatican library, which is where Reagan and John Paul II met when they met for the first time 35 years ago. And also, just simply when -- you know, I've talked to people who have met popes, who have met Pope Francis.

And when you meet with that bishop in white -- and in Francis' case, somebody with a very calm, friendly, winsome demeanor. I think it probably humbled Trump. And the pictures that I saw of him and Ivanka, you know, slightly veiled. Melania veiled. Melania even apparently -- this is according to the National Catholic Register, gave a rosary to the pope and asked him to bless it. I mean, I don't know if it's her rosary.

GLENN: Well, she came from a very Catholic company -- she came from a very Catholic country, did she not?

PAUL: Right. Well, that's true, she did. And the pope even made a couple references to different Slovenian dishes that he knew of. And Slovenia was -- I mean, that was part of the Balkans area that the Soviets and the communists were dominating from the 1940s to the 1980s.

GLENN: Right.

PAUL: So, you know, they probably -- in that respect, she surely has a respect for the Catholic church -- I mean, she noted that she was Slovak. And Pope John Paul II was the first and only Slovak pope.

GLENN: Paul, thank you for your analysis on this. Can't urge the audience enough. Please, if you like Ronald Reagan, you are going to love Paul Kengor's book. I'm still waiting for an autographed copy, Paul, but no rush.

PAUL: Oh. You got it.

GLENN: A Pope and a President. The story of John Paul and Ronald Reagan. This friendship that changed the world. It's a tremendous, tremendous read. Paul, thank you so much for being on.

PAUL: Okay. Glenn, take care.

GLENN: You got it.

STU: Noticed how you happened to make a story about the pope and the president, about you, which was an interesting trick there. Quite an achievement.

GLENN: Well, I thought it was the only way I could get an autographed copy on the air. I could write him all day, and he's not going to do it. Now he's got to. Now he's got to.


Glenn reads leftists’ CLUELESS reactions to SCOTUS decision

The far-left proved once again it’s members care very little about ‘peace.’ In fact, some reactions from leftist, blue checkmarks on Twitter show just how ANGRY they can be…especially when it comes to the Supreme Court preserving the Constitution and returning rights to the STATES. Glenn reads several of their reactions to SCOTUS' recent decision that further protects the Second Amendment...


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Boy, I just wanted to go through some of the blue checkmark responses from yesterday. Because, gee. I just -- I just don't -- I just don't know what else to say. They were so right on target. Now, that's -- that's a joke. I didn't mean it. I didn't mean it actually target. You know, like Sarah Palin actually meant it. Alicia Sultan. Or Ashia, or whatever her name is. She says, God forbid. Listen, you're listening right now to a guy who is in the Radio Hall of Fame. I am so good at what I do. I don't even need to know how to pronounce names. I don't have to. They were like, this guy is like a radio god.

Yeah, but have you heard him?
Yeah, put him in the Hall of Fame.
Anyway, she said, God forbid, someone you love gets killed by gun violence. I second that. Second Amendment fetishizing will never bring that back, or a make that loss easier to bear. Yeah. I agree with that. I mean, hang on. Let me just take the ball out of my mouth here. I have this fetish thing with the Second Amendment. It is hot. Too many people believe that unfettered access to guns will never hurt someone they love, until it happens. Okay. I don't know what your point is really here. Marion Williams says. People will die because of this. And to be very clear, now, listen to this argument.
To be very clear. They're not doing this to protect the Second Amendment. They're doing it to protect the primacy of property rights.
Well, gosh, that's a good reason to do it too, I guess. Huh. I didn't even think of the property right part. But thanks for pointing that out, Marion. Neil Cattial says, it's going to be very weird if the Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week. Saying it should be left to the states to decide, right after it imposed a constitutional right to conceal and carry firearms. Saying, it cannot be left to the states to decide.
Neil, here's what you're missing, dude.One is actually in the Constitution. It's called the Second Amendment. That tells the federal government, and the states exactly what they can and cannot do. What government cannot do. There is no right to abortion. I -- show it to me. Show it to me. When you can show it to me, I will change my argument. That, when it's not in -- I'll talk slowly for you, Neil.
When it's not in the Constitution, then, there's this part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It's -- it's -- just look for the number ten. Okay? And that says anything that's not specifically in the Constitution. That goes then to the states. Yeah. Look at you. You're going to read something.
Jill Flipuffock says -- says the kind of people who desperately want to carry concealed weapons in public, is based on a generalized interest in self-defense are precisely the kind of paranoid, insecure, violence, fetishizing people, who should not be able to carry a concealed weapon in public. Okay. So let me get this right.
If you want to carry one, you're the kind that shouldn't carry one. So, in other words, when -- this is right. Jill, my gosh, my whole world is changing. Thank you for this. Now I understand when Martin Luther King went in and said to the state officials, hey. I need to have a concealed carry permit. He's exactly the kind of guy, you Democrats didn't want to carry a gun.
Yes! Jill, thank you for that enlightenment. David Hogged says, you're entitled to your opinion. But not your own facts. And like your own facts, you're not entitled to your own history. That's exactly what the Supreme Court decision is. It's a reversal of 200 years of jurisprudence that will get Americans killed. David, David
Have you read a book? Come on. Do you know anything at all -- name three founders. Can you do it? Right now, think. Go. Can't do it, David. 200 years.
Our -- the only times -- the only times in our history, and you wouldn't know this. Because you bury all the left. Buries the Democratic history.
The only time that we have any kind of history, where we're taking guns away from people, is when the government is afraid of those people. When the government gets really, really racist. Okay? That's why the Indians, yeah. That's why they're living on reservations now. Because we took away their guns. Yeah. Yeah.
That's why after the Civil War. And before the Civil War, slaves could not have guns. Why?
Because they might defend themselves. And then, after they were freed, oh, my gosh, the Democrats freaked out. Those freed slaves, will have a way to protect themselves. And they got it done through all kinds of laws, kind of like what you're doing now.
Thank you, David for writing in. You're special. March for Our Lives. Blue checkmark said yesterday.
The court's decision is dangerous. And deadly. The unfairly nominated blatantly partisan justices put the Second Amendment over our lives. No. I -- I -- may I quote the Princess Bride? I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. Okay?
Second Amendment is there, to protect our lives. To protect our property. And to protect our freedom.
I just want to throw that one out. The blood of American people who die from needless gun violence will be on their corrupt hands.
Okay. Wahajit Ali (phonetic) said, let's have a bunch of black, brown, and Muslim folks carry large guns in predominantly white neighborhoods.
I know the Second Amendment advocates will say that's great and encourage it. Because American history proves otherwise. We might get gun control. But we would also get a lot of chalk outlines.(laughter)Mr. Ali, you are so funny.
See, what you fail to recognize is that all of the people that you say are racist, aren't racist.
There are racists in this country, a lot of them seem to come from the left. You know, like the socialist Klan members. Or the socialist Nazi members. You see what they have both in common?
Yeah. Democratic Party. Anyway, Mr. Alley, if someone wants to carry a gun. And they're a Muslim. I have absolutely no problem. You're brown, you're pink, you're polka dot. You have covid and you're not wearing a mask. Or you don't have covid, and you're wearing 20 masks. And you want to carry a gun. I'm totally fine with that. Now, if you get a bunch of people. And, again, I don't care what color they are. Marching down my neighborhood, with large guns. Yeah. I am going to call the police because that's unusual.
What are you doing? We're just marching with our guns. Why in my neighborhood at night?
None of your business. Does Kavanaugh live around here? See, there's a difference. There's a difference. Right-wingers can freak out about nullification or packing or whatever.
No one cares. You broke all the norms of decency, democracy, and fairness. Oh, my gosh. Oh, wait. Wait.
This is from David Atkins. He has a great solution. At the end of the day, California and New York are not going to let Wyoming and Idaho tell us how we have to live in a Mad Max gun climate hell.
Oh, my gosh. David, let's break some bread, baby. Let's come together. Yeah. All right. Let me do my best Marianne Williamson.
Yeah. Yeah. Because we can come together. What you just said is the point of the Tenth Amendment. California and New York, I don't want to live like them.
You don't want to live like us. So let's not. Let's not. However, there are ten big things. And I've heard they've added to these. But there are ten big things, that no government in the United States of America, can do. Now, you want to change that, let's change it. Because what's so crazy, is there's this thing called the amendment process. You want to change the Constitution, you don't -- what -- all norms of decency. Democracy and fairness. You don't break those.
You want to change those amendments. You can do it. All you have to do is go through the amendment process. And then if you say, everybody has to have a pig on their lap. You get the states to vote for that. Put it on the amendment. You have it. Now, probably there would be another amendment that comes later. That says, hey, the big in the lap thing is really, really, stupid, and I think America lost its mind temporarily. So we're going to scratch that one out. From here on out, no. Absolute must have a pig on your lap kind of loss. Okay?
But both of those would be done through the amendment process. That would be doing it the decent way, the fair way, and the Democratic way. But David, you are cute. When you think, you're cute. Tristan Schnell writes in, when American service members die oversees, their caskets are brought to Dover Air Force base to be displayed and mourned. No, they're not displayed. I don't know if you've noticed this. But we try not to display the dead. But when Americans die because of gun violence, their caskets should be brought to the steps of the Supreme Court. So the justices can see what they've done. Yeah.
Tristan, I like that. Why don't we take every baby that's been aborted, and put them in a bucket. I mean, we're going to need a big bucket. Because there's millions of those.
And let's dump them, on the front steps of the Supreme Court. So they can see what they've done. Wow!
I got to thank all the blue checkmarks. Because you've really turned me around.


Why the Fed’s ‘MATH PROBLEM’ may result in MORE inflation

Yes, it’s possible for our economy to suffer from extremely high inflation while certain goods, products, and services experience DEFLATION as well, Carol Roth — a financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business’ — tells Glenn. The Fed actually is TRYING to deflate the economy, Roth explains. But while they’re saying one thing, the Fed’s current policy shows the exact opposite. And that ‘math problem,’ Roth says, is what could cause our economy to experience even more, ‘prolonged’ inflation. It’s a ‘dire situation,’ and there seems to be ZERO leadership willing to fix it…


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Is it not possible to have super high inflation, on some products. And super low deflation. Prices that are -- that are crazy.

Because they -- nobody is buying them, in other categories. Is that possible to have both of those?

CAROL: Yeah. I think that the best analogy for that would be kind of the '70s. And something that looks for stagflation. Where the economy stagnates. And it stagnates, like you said, because all the money has been sucked up in a couple of categories. And there really is a lot to go around in other places. There's not a lot of investments being made, and what not. But we still end up having high inflation. And we are certainly, a lot of people feel like we're in that sort of stagflation, you know, arena, right now. And it can continue on the trajectory. But you have to remember in terms of deflation. I mean, that's what the Federal Reserve is trying to do. They are actively trying to deflate, you know, not just the bubbles and assets, but they're trying to deflate spending, to cool off the economy. That's why they're shutting off their balance sheets. That's why they're raising their interest rates. It's meant to cool off demand. And that's the math problem that I keep talking about. They keep saying, oh, the consumer. And businesses are going to save us from a recession. But at the same time, the policy is meant to do the exact opposite. The policy is meant to make it, so that people aren't able to spend in the same way. So those two objectives are at odds with each other. And so I do think, that we could end up in this prolonged period, like you said, where the inflation hasn't quite gotten under control. Especially since we have so many supply demand imbalances in our economy. We have a labor imbalance. We have a food imbalance. We have an energy imbalance. And we have a commodity imbalance. And that's not going to it be solved by any monetary policy. That requires real action. And we don't have leadership, that's willing to lead or frankly do anything.

GLENN: So we have -- as I see it, we're looking at a situation. Again, I'm going back. And please, correct me where my thinking is off. But I'm going back to the Great Depression. So people were afraid. They held on to their money. They spent what they had to, and what they could afford. But nothing else.

That caused the labor market to shoot out of control. To -- to about 25 percent unemployment. Because the factories were closing down. Because no one was buying anything, from the factories. Which then, in turn, made FDR say, we're going to build the Hoover damn, to give people jobs. But it was all the government money, which would have just caused more inflation, if I'm not mistaken. Had it not been for the -- and I hate to say it this way. But the saving grace of the Second World War. Right? Were we in a death spiral? I mean, the war was definitely a different kind of reset. And I think a lot of the logic that you're talking about makes sense. If consumer sentiment is really important. And it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, if people don't feel confident, they don't go out and spend. They're worried about their inflation. And being able to feed their family. And get to work. They aren't going to spend -- I think there are a couple of things that we have that are different. And it's not necessarily better for the average American. So I just want to be clear. That I'm on your side, and I'm not saying that it's better.

But because of this huge supply and demand imbalance. We have two jobs available for every person looking. The likelihood is that that probably contracts to be, you know, a better match, than having massive unemployment just because of that scenario is going on. And we also have a whole slew of Americans, who are doing -- you know, have done very well. They have been the beneficiaries of this giant wealth transfer from Main Street to Wall Street. So I think we're going to have a lot of, you know, different outcomes. You know, that inadequately, that's been driven by government policy. And that's never a good thing. Because, you know, the social unrest that comes with it. And rightfully so. Because, you know, these policies have really put the middle class. The working class. And in some cases, the lower class, at risk, to the benefit of the people on the inside. And so the numbers on average, may not show how dire the situation is. And so they'll be able to spend. And say, oh, everything is great. And the consumer is doing well, when people are really struggling. And, you know, that's going to be when we continue to just be furious. And, you know, demand something be done about that.

GLENN: Carol, thank you so much for everything that you do.

She's just issued a new paper. A new piece for TheBlaze. What the heck is going on in bitcoin. And you can find that at What is going on with bitcoin, by Carol Roth. Thanks, Carol. God bless.


Glenn: I didn't think Roe v Wade would end in my lifetime

GLENN: We just have to take a minute, and just think of the miracle we just witnessed.

There isn't a soul, not one soul, in this audience that thought that this would happen. Like this. This fast.

I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime.


'This is how I spend my vacation': Glenn gives behind-the-scenes look at new radio theme recording

If you have ever wondered where Glenn gets the music for his radio show or assumed he used pre-made stock music or cheap computer software, now you know, it’s the real deal. Glenn's vacation technically started this week, but that couldn't keep him away from his natural habitat—the recording studio—where he spent several hours working on an updated radio theme track with pro composer Sam Cardon and Millennial Choirs & Orchestras (MCO).

Glenn was looking for something that sounded more urgent, and from the preview Glenn shared, it sounds like the creative team nailed it. The epic score sounds like it would easily feel at home in a Lord of the Rings or Star Wars film.

The new theme will be on air at a future date, but if you can’t wait, make sure to watch the video for a sneak peak!