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

Subversion of a President Is Not Exposing Government Overreach

June 07, 2017
Staff

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.

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.