Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Illegal Immigrant Hits Jackpot and Is Awarded $190K From San Francisco for Deporting Him

July 05, 2017
Staff

WRITER

San Francisco needs to make up their mind on which of their immigration policies they want to follow. They let Kate Steinle's killer back into the country six times after serious felonies yet they turned one man over to ICE when he reported his car stolen.

The Venezuelan national, Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, has now not only sued San Francisco but was awarded $190,000. Something doesn't smell right and Glenn and the guys kicked around a theory why that is on radio Wednesday.

"Now, why did they take the case, and what is being done here? And I think you're exactly right, Stu. That they are using this as a case -- because he's a sympathetic figure. Here's the guy that everybody wants to say is the guy, and he's a hard-working guy. He's here for a job. He's doing his job. He's paying his taxes," Glenn said.

Remember, Rosa Parks was not the first to stand up on the bus and say, "No, I'm not sitting in the back." She was just the best one to represent the cause.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: A man from El Salvador in the US, illegally, has sued San Francisco after police turned him over to immigration authorities in violation of the city's sanctuary law.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: He's going to be awarded $190,000 according to his attorney. Now, this happened last Thursday.

PAT: Heaven help us.

GLENN: Now, what happened? Imagine, San Francisco, they didn't turn in anybody.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: A guy -- Kate's Law happened in San Francisco. The guy who killed Kate. What was her last name?

PAT: Steinle.

GLENN: Shot by a guy who had been --

PAT: Deported five times.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Back in the country six times.

GLENN: Came back. Breaking the law. Drugs. All kinds of bad stuff. They refused to turn him over, and he went out and killed somebody.

Now, what did this guy -- 33 years old, what did this guy to have the San Francisco authorities go around the law -- their sanctuary city law --

PAT: Which it's really not a law, is it? Is it a law or is it a policy?

GLENN: It's a policy.

PAT: It does say law, but I think they're just policies.

GLENN: But the police follow that as law. They follow it. They always follow it.

PAT: Yes, they do.

GLENN: No matter how bad the guy is.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: So, again, the question is, what did this guy do? This is where this story just wreak to high heaven. What did this guy do?

PAT: Must have been bad, right?

GLENN: Right? Had to be.

No. He reported his car stolen. Police say they found it. He went to pick it up. And they asked him, "Are you here legally?" No. They turned immigration officials on to him.

PAT: Oh, no.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: No, no, no. But before you get into the mocking of it, which is quite easy to do. Before you get into the mocking of it --

PAT: Yes, it is easy to do. Because this is ridiculous.

GLENN: Why -- why did they make an exception for this guy? He's a carpenter. He was building houses. He had a job. He was minding his own business. Here's a guy who reports crime. They say that's the number one thing for sanctuary cities.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They don't feel comfortable reporting crime. So a guy reports crime. He's a victim. And they turn him over. Why?

JEFFY: That's a good question.

GLENN: Why? I do not have an answer at this point.

JEFFY: Because that's a good --

GLENN: But why?

STU: Well, the obvious one is that Trump handles thing differently. The pressure maybe is getting to some of these smaller communities.

JEFFY: Or this is their fightback. Right?

PAT: Or this is a way for them to say, this is exactly why we have this sanctuary city law so that crimes --

JEFFY: Right. Right.

GLENN: This happened under Obama, by the way.

STU: Okay.

PAT: So that crimes are reported.

PAT: So that crimes are reported, we must have it.

GLENN: So now the staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus -- the Asian Law Caucus. This guy is not Asian.

PAT: No.

GLENN: This guy is Pedro --

PAT: Figueroa-Zarceno.

GLENN: -- Figueroa-Zarceno. He's 33. He's not Asian. The guy who is at the Asian Law Caucus decided to pick this up.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: And was represented by Sierra Hussein. Now, why did they take the case, and what is being done here? And I think you're exactly right, Stu. That they are using this as a case -- because he's a sympathetic figure. Here's the guy that everybody wants to say is the guy --

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: -- you know --

PAT: We told you they won't report if you're going to do this. This guy is just reporting a crime.

GLENN: And he's a hard-working guy. He's here for a job. He's doing his job. He's paying his taxes.

JEFFY: We had to.

GLENN: Remember, Rosa Parks was not the first to stand up on the bus and say, "No, I'm not sitting in the back."

PAT: She was just the best one to represent the cause.

GLENN: Exactly right. There were other people before her --

PAT: There were teens, right? Young girls.

GLENN: She was the one -- she was the one that the system, if you will, picked and said, she's the one that has the great case.

PAT: We're going to run with her.

GLENN: She's perfectly articulate. She's got a clean record. I think she was married and had kids or whatever the situation was. But she was not the first to stand up. She was the one that the -- the movement chose and said, "You go do it."

STU: To quote Joe Biden, she was articulate and clean. It was a fairytale. It was a fairytale.

GLENN: No, that's when he was talking about something else.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Why was this guy selected? Because, remember, he was arrested at the end of December --

PAT: December 2015.

GLENN: -- and they file suit in January. So they find him. They find each other.

PAT: Uh-huh. It was after Kate Steinle was murdered.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So even after that murder, they're still -- they're willing to -- I mean, this guy has a lot of nerve to turn around and sue the city for $190,000 when he shouldn't be here in the first place.

STU: That's amazing.

PAT: And they grant him that $190,000. They're trying to make a statement here.

GLENN: And I'm probably reading way too much into it.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It just doesn't seem -- why break it on this one? Why break it on this one?

STU: Even us. We're strong on the border. The most ardent defender of ending sanctuary cities would admit that this is certainly a possibility to happen occasionally.

GLENN: Oh, it's going to happen over and over again. Not in San Francisco.

If this happened in Dallas, you would kind of understand it. This is San Francisco.

STU: You might as well wait for the perfect case, though.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. You're saying, it they were waiting for a case? Oh, yeah. Yeah.

STU: Because obviously -- the point is, you're making large decisions over large groups of people here, not saying that there never can be an exception to this rule. But you have to weigh the positives and the negatives. It's a cost-benefit analysis.

GLENN: If you're coming to the police to report a crime, I think I could easily side with, leave people alone. Let them report crime. You know what I mean? Don't ask any questions when you're reporting a crime because you don't want crime to happen. This is the worst-case scenario for people who say, hey, we have a problem with illegals.

Okay. Well, let's make sure they report crime. Let's give them a pass on reporting crime.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know what I mean? That's an easy compromise to make.

PAT: Yeah. We can work this out, easily.

GLENN: Why after Kate is singled out, this guy comes up to report a crime and all of a sudden --

PAT: They make him rich.

GLENN: Yeah. And San Francisco becomes a hardass with this guy?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That's not right. Right?

Will this SAVE America’s children? SCOTUS upholds trans ban in red states

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

99% see THROUGH media’s L.A. riot cover-up

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

EXPOSED: Your tax dollars FUND Marxist riots in LA

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

Protesters wore Che shirts, waved foreign flags, and chanted Marxist slogans — but corporate media still peddles the ‘spontaneous outrage’ narrative.

I sat in front of the television this weekend, watching the glittering spectacle of corporate media do what it does best: tell me not to believe my lying eyes.

According to the polished news anchors, what I was witnessing in Los Angeles was “mostly peaceful protests.” They said it with all the earnest gravitas of someone reading a bedtime story, while behind them the streets looked like a deleted scene from “Mad Max.” Federal agents dodged concrete slabs as if it were an Olympic sport. A man in a Che Guevara crop top tried to set a police car on fire. Dumpster fires lit the night sky like some sort of postapocalyptic luau.

If you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

But sure, it was peaceful. Tear gas clouds and Molotov cocktails are apparently the incense and candles of this new civic religion.

The media expects us to play along — to nod solemnly while cities burn and to call it “activism.”

Let’s call this what it is: delusion.

Another ‘peaceful’ riot

If the Titanic “mostly floated” and the Hindenburg “mostly flew,” then yes, the latest L.A. riots are “mostly peaceful.” But history tends to care about those tiny details at the end — like icebergs and explosions.

The coverage was full of phrases like “spontaneous,” “grassroots,” and “organic,” as if these protests materialized from thin air. But many of the signs and banners looked like they’d been run off at ComradesKinkos.com — crisp print jobs with slogans promoting socialism, communism, and various anti-American regimes. Palestinian flags waved beside banners from Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and El Salvador. It was like someone looted a United Nations souvenir shop and turned it into a revolution starter pack.

And guess who funded it? You did.

According to at least one report, much of this so-called spontaneous rage fest was paid for with your tax dollars. Tens of millions of dollars from the Biden administration ensured your paycheck funded Trotsky cosplayers chucking firebombs at local coffee shops.

The same aging radicals from the 1970s — now armed with tenure, pensions, and book deals — are cheering from the sidelines, waxing poetic about how burning a squad car is “liberation.” These are the same folks who once wore tie-dye and flew to help guerrilla fighters and now applaud chaos under the banner of “progress.”

This is not progress. It is not protest. It’s certainly not justice or peace.

It’s an attempt to dismantle the American system — and if you dare say that out loud, you’re labeled a bigot, a fascist, or, worst of all, someone who notices reality.

And what sparked this taxpayer-funded riot? Enforcement against illegal immigrants — many of whom, according to official arrest records, are repeat violent offenders. These are not the “dreamers” or the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. These are criminals with long, violent rap sheets — allowed to remain free by a broken system that prioritizes ideology over public safety.

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg | Getty Images

This is what people are rioting over — not the mistreatment of the innocent, but the arrest of the guilty. And in California, that’s apparently a cause for outrage.

The average American, according to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, is supposed to worry they’ll be next. But unless you’re in the habit of assaulting people, smuggling, or firing guns into people’s homes, you probably don’t have much to fear.

Still, if you suggest that violent criminals should be deported or imprisoned, you’re painted as the extremist.

The left has lost it

This is what happens when a culture loses its grip on reality. We begin to call arson “art,” lawlessness “liberation,” and criminals “community members.” We burn the good and excuse the evil — all while the media insists it’s just “vibes.”

But it’s not just vibes. It’s violence, paid for by you, endorsed by your elected officials, and whitewashed by newsrooms with more concern for hair and lighting than for truth.

This isn’t activism. This is anarchism. And Democratic politicians are fueling the flame.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck's 'No King but Christ' merch: Will faith STOP the chaos?

On Saturday, June 14, 2025 (President Trump's 79th birthday), the "No Kings" protest—a noisy spectacle orchestrated by progressive heavyweights like Randi Weingarten and her union cronies—will take place in Washington, D.C.

Thousands will chant "no thrones, no crowns, no king," claiming to fend off authoritarianism and corruption.

But let’s cut through the noise. The protesters' grievances—rigged courts, deported citizens, slashed services—are a house of cards. Zero Americans have been deported, Federal services are still bloated, and if anyone is rigging the courts, it's the Left. So why rally now, especially with riots already flaring in L.A.?

Chaos isn’t a side effect here—it’s the plan.

This is not about liberty; it's a power grab dressed up as resistance. The "No Kings" crowd wants you to buy their script: government’s the enemy—unless they’re the ones running it. It's the identical script from 2020: same groups, same tactics, same goal, different name.

But Glenn is flipping the script. He's dropping a new "No Kings but Christ" merch line, just in time for the protest. Merch that proclaims one truth: no earthly ruler owns us; only Christ does. It’s a bold, faith-rooted rejection of this secular circus.

Why should you care? Because this won’t just be a rally—it’ll be a symptom. Distrust in institutions is sky-high, and rightly so, but the "No Kings" answer is a hollow shout into the void. Glenn’s merch begs the question: if you’re ditching kings, who’s really in charge? Get yours and wear the answer proudly.