Subversion of a President Is Not Exposing Government Overreach

June 07, 2017

WRITER

Reality Winner is a name you're going to hear quite often over the next few months, if not years. This is the woman charged with taking top secret documents and giving them to the media. She's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, but the real comparison is to Hillary Clinton.

"She's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden did or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong, so he exposed it to the world," Mike Broomhead said Wednesday, filling in for Glenn.

The reality is that Reality subverted the president of the United States --- and politics should have nothing to do with this story going forward. Good luck with that.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

MIKE: All right. It is the Glenn Beck Program. We're talking about Reality Winner. That is her name. It's a name you're going to be hearing quite often, I'm sure, over the next month, probably year or so, as this is the woman that has been charged as the White House leaker. Someone that has been charged with taking top secret documents. Removing them from the White House and giving them to the media.

Now, she's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, when she should be compared to Hillary Clinton. And what I mean by that is, Hillary wasn't trying to subvert anyone. But what she did was so negligent, and it was the same act. It's just that Hillary did it digitally. I wish that point could be -- if that point could have been made to the American people during the election better, it would have been much worse for her. There is no difference -- and I guess it's a generational thing. You know, I'm 50 years old. So for me, a hard piece of paper being taken out of a room where it's not supposed to be removed from, you can see the crime in that. Sending an email over an unsecured server versus a secured server, for someone that's 50 years old, I don't know what that means. I know that makes me sound old. But it doesn't resonate with me. With young people who have never lived without tablets or smartphones or devices where they do business online, where there's paperless everything, you realize, A, there's not much privacy on those devices. You're giving away your privacy. You're being watched by everyone. I mean, just try to buy something online. Go to Amazon one day and look for a product. And the next day, when you open your Facebook page, the advertisement for that product shows up magically on your Facebook page.

I mean, obviously they're watching what you're doing. But when it comes to a crime like this, somebody explain to me the difference. I would love to have an expert try to explain that way.

That what Hillary Clinton did was no different than what this girl did, except she didn't give it to the press. She was emailing it to other people on unsecured servers. She took documents that were classified and put them in an unclassified place. That's illegal. That's where the comparison should lie with this Reality Winner. But more importantly, where she's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong thing. So he exposed it to the world.

What she is doing is subverting a specific person. She is working the White House, and she is subverting the president of the United States. If you go to her Twitter account, some of the things she's tweeted out have been horrible things about people. And so there were -- there were a few tweets. So on Glenn Beck's -- on his Twitter page -- if you go to Glenn Beck -- if you follow Glenn, @GlennBeck, or you go to GlennBeck.com, the poll asks, which of the tweets was her most troubling?

The one in the lead right now is being white is terrorism. Because she did tweet that out. She tweeted out @KanyeWest, that he should make a T-shirt that being white is terrorism.

The one that's in last place is calling the president foul names. Because she did. She called him all kinds of stuff. The tangerine-in-chief and stuff like that. The other two -- the other tied close to first place was the one I thought was the worst, was when the Iranians were tweeting out about the Americans and weapons, she tweeted back to the Iranians that if the president, with a derogatory term, starts a war or declares war -- which she must not know her Constitution because the president can't do that, but if the president declares war, there are people in America, like her, that will stand with the Iranians. How does that woman get and maintain a security clearance? That's the one I chose as the most egregious. And then there's also one in there about the attorney general being a confederate, which, again, is just name-calling nonsense. But if you want to vote on that. You can go to GlennBeck.com. You can find the story there. Or you can go to Glenn Beck. And it's pretty easy. Then you can see the vote total and how it's gone and up what the percentages are.

To be honest with you, this girl deserves to be punished. She is subverting the American government. And it's funny how people left and right are asking such silly questions. I have a close friend, I think I mentioned yesterday on the show, my friend who I grew up with, he's like a brother to me, but he's so far left of me that it's impossible to have conversations sometimes. And he gave the caveat that if she did something wrong, she should be punished. But -- then there was the big "but," was, but why are people more concerned about what she did than the information that she put out there? And I laughed out loud by myself at that.

Are you kidding?

What was the mantra when the evidence was out there by the Russians about Hillary Clinton and her time as Secretary of State? And this great firewall between her office as Secretary of State and the foundation in which she started, where she said there would be no interaction. And then we found out that there was not only interaction, there was collusion. There were people that couldn't get a meeting -- and that wasn't a Saudi prince. But it was a government official, I think, for the Middle East, who couldn't get a meeting through proper channels with the Secretary of State. So they reached to Huma Abedin, through the foundation, who said, this guy is a big donor to the foundation, trying to get a meeting with the Secretary. Can't do it through the other channels. Can you help? Huma Abedin replies, we've sent some dates, let us know which one works.

The most egregious was the Haiti relief. And there's the documents that show that if you were friends of Bill Clinton or you were a big donor to the Clinton Foundation, you were directed to people in the State Department that would get you expedited contracts or, you know, at least get your applications in to get the relief contracts to do the work that would be paid for by our State Department, by our government. And it was said in those emails, if they aren't either, A, a big donor or, B, a friend of Bill, they're to be directed to a website to submit an application.

All of that stuff was out there. Was anybody on the left saying, we need to worry about the information and not worry so much -- so let's worry about the information in both cases. What is it that Reality Winner put out there? Reality Winner released a document that said -- an NSA document saying that the Russians tried to hack into the elections in a few places. They sent out phishing emails, trying to get election officials to give them information, and they directly tried to hack into some of the voting poll places -- or, polling software. And there's no evidence that they were successful on any level.

So the uproar was, of course, oh, my gosh, look what's going on. And I said two thing. Number one, who was president when that happened? It wasn't Donald Trump. He was running for president then. Why would the Russians help Trump?

But more importantly, if you're going to blame the White House for this, why would President Obama help Donald Trump? Because that's what happened here. It was under his administration that these things were going on. So she's releasing documents that this happened. That they tried to get in.

So okay. Let's look at the reality of that. Let's say that the smoking gun is that the Russians tried to hack into the American election system. They were unsuccessful. What is the big -- what's the big story there to be told?

So you compare that with the okay, now let's pay attention to the evidence against Hillary Clinton, where she had a server. Don't we all? I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. I think everybody keeps a private server for their email corporation and their business in their bathroom, right? We all do that. We all set up a private server at our house and put it in the bathroom. And then when we become -- when we get investigated, our people pick and choose which emails are going to be turned over, when the law says you turn them all over. And she said, the other ones were just recipes and yoga stuff. Okay.

First of all, no way you do yoga and no way you cook. So let's just dispense with that right away. And the fact of the matter is all of those emails should have been turned over. If you taint the water by mixing your personal emails with your business emails, they all get turned over. It didn't happen. Then she sanitizes -- she has someone sanitize and completely dismantle that server that took months and months and months and months to get information off of. And yet, nobody wants to scream about that.

Reality Winner stole documents and gave them to the press -- to the press to subvert the American president. Whether you like Donald Trump or you don't like Donald Trump, if you respect the system, how is this not a huge crime? It is. It is absolutely a huge crime.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep