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

If Bruce Was Never a He and Always a She, Who Won the Men's Olympic Gold in 1976?

July 07, 2017
Staff

WRITER

ESPN has gone all in on diversity and the insanity is at a fever pitch. In a recent 30 for 30 documentary podcast on the 1992 Olympics, Dan and Dave, the stars of a massive Reebok advertising push, were interviewed about their experience. In the interview, the two dared to call Bruce Jenner a he even though he was still calling himself a he at the time.

This prompted ESPN to add this disclaimer to the podcast:

One note, this episode features references to legendary decathlete Caitlyn Jenner. First to be referred to as Bruce in regards to her decathlete career.

Wait a second, is there a legendary athlete named Caitlyn Jenner in the record books?

"They put a disclaimer at the beginning of this podcast to tell you that they're calling him Bruce when he was Bruce. However, even when Bruce or Caitlyn now says he wants to be referred to as Bruce, they still feel the need to tell you that it's Caitlyn and Caitlyn was the famous decathlete from the 1970s," Stu said on radio Friday.

"If Caitlyn Jenner --- if Bruce Jenner was a woman in 1976, which is what we're supposed to believe, we should strip the medals away from Bruce Jenner because Caitlyn was performing in the wrong decision... If Caitlyn Jenner was actually Bruce at the time and was a woman, that would be against Olympic rules to compete in that division."

This really should be a non-issue or at least not a complicated one, but somehow diversity has made everyone second guess everything.

"ESPN has gone --- and it's the Disney mentality. They've just gone nuts. They've just gone nuts," Glenn said.

"But it's not that complex. You're saying she is wrong. She was always a she and never a him, no matter what he says. By the way, don't you ever call him a him when it's her because of his choice to be her."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

STU: And since we're coming off bathroom talk, maybe we should start with the 30 for 30 documentary on the decathlon that just came out. ESPN just launched a podcast for the documentaries on that topic, and they tell great stories from sports history. They're really well done. Pat and I both love them. But I listened to the first one, which was about Dan and Dave. Do you remember Dan and Dave in the '90s? It was a huge --

PAT: Athletes. Expected to win the gold and silver for the Olympics.

STU: In 1992 in Barcelona. So Reebok, at the time at the time were competitors with Nike trying to raise their profile dumped $25 million into this ad campaign for these two guys that no one had ever heard of and built a rivalry leading up to the Olympics. Well, the whole story is -- I mean, it's a great story because they dumped all of this money in it, and it really didn't work out. Although, there are parts of it that did, and the documentary covers all the ins and outs of it. But when you're talking the decathlon and the Olympics, you're talking about Bruce Jenner, though. Bruce Jenner is the guy when you're talking about American history. 1976, he's the guy.

PAT: He was on Wheaties boxes. He was a household name. He was a major brand in and of himself. I mean, he was an American Moore.

STU: And I don't care --

GLENN: Notice the way we're even talking about this. We are discussing Bruce Jenner as if he's dead.

JEFFY: Was. Yeah. Was.

GLENN: He was a household name.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So the Bruce Jenner that we grew up with is dead.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: He has been reborn as Caitlyn, and in order to talk about him as a man, it has to be past tense.

STU: Right. So but when you're talking about him in that past tense, even if you are a person who says I'm calling them -- I'm calling her Caitlyn now, and you're fully onboard with that, you still refer to him as Bruce when you're talking about 1976; right?

GLENN: Yes, you have to.

PAT: And here's what they did. This is either Dan or Dave. I'm not sure.

>> I remember eating lunch with Bruce Jenner and Bruce kept telling me. Only thing people are going to remember is the Olympic games. And I thought to myself, man, this guy's crazy.

PAT: This guy is called Bruce. This man.

GLENN: Wait a minute. Are you saying that he's in trouble for this?

STU: Well, listen. There's another clip. I think we have Dave as well talking about this, Pat.

Well, it's interesting. Jackie Joyner-Kersey made the comment that I could be the next Bruce Jenner. And that is what I was striving to do, you know, most of my career. He was the hero that we all wanted to be in 1976, and he was the golden boy.

GLENN: This is all accurate.

PAT: Golden boy, hero.

STU: That's how you would do it; right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Even if you were completely onboard.

GLENN: Now here comes ESPN.

>> It's the story of a 1992 Reebok ad campaign 25 years ago this summer unlike anything anyone had seen before. Reebok spent some $25 million on the campaign featuring two top decathletes. A sum equal to their prior year's marketing budget. Those who remember the story remember it as a bust. But there are many more twists and turns along the way for Reebok, the two athletes, and the sport of track and field.

STU: All right. I'm ready.

>> One note, this episode features references to legendary decathlete Caitlyn Jenner.

PAT: Wait. What? Legendary athlete? There is no legendary decathlete Caitlyn Jenner. Look it up.

STU: You're not going to see it.

PAT: You're not going to see it.

>> First to be referred to as Bruce in regards to her decathlete career.

PAT: In regards to her decathlete.

>> So she prefers to be referred to as Bruce.

STU: They put a disclaimer at the beginning of this podcast to tell you that they're calling him Bruce when he was Bruce. However, even when Bruce or Caitlyn now says he wants to be referred to as Bruce, they still feel the need to tell you that it's Caitlyn and Caitlyn was the famous decathlete from the 1970s.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: We're rewriting history.

STU: We're rewriting history. Caitlyn is not in the record books.

PAT: There's no legendary decathlete named Caitlyn Jenner. There just isn't one.

STU: If Caitlyn Jenner -- if Bruce Jenner was a woman in 1976, which is what we're supposed to believe, we should strip the medals away from Bruce Jenner because Caitlyn was performing in the wrong decision. This is absolutely false advertising by her; right? If Caitlyn Jenner was actually Bruce at the time and was a woman, that would be against Olympic rules to compete in that division.

PAT: ESPN is ludicrous. They're ludicrous.

GLENN: ESPN has gone -- and it's the Disney mentality. They've just gone nuts. They've just gone nuts.

STU: I mean, I can understand. If you want to be onboard and say, hey, it's Caitlyn now, and I'm going to call her a her. Whatever she wants, we're going to do. But to change history and say there was a legendary decathlete named Caitlyn Jenner is just ridiculous.

GLENN: I don't have a problem with the disclaimer just because of all the people who can be it upon themselves to say I'm going to be the sentinel and the guardian for Caitlyn. I have no problem with the deal saying, hey, this story involves now Caitlyn Jenner who prefers to be called Bruce for this time period of his life. And then leave it at that. But what they did is they're being the guardians and basically saying, hey, we all have to accept him as her now because that's what he prefers. But he also prefers -- she also prefers to be called him for this time period, but we're not going to listen to that because we know better.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That's crazy.

STU: They're saying Bruce is wrong.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

STU: That's how it comes off.

GLENN: Their bigotry is showing here.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They are not about "Oh, let's celebrate our diversity, and let's celebrate how each of us can make our own way and decide who we are. No. She just asked for you to call her him for this time period. Now it's complex.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: But it's not that complex. You're saying she is wrong. She was always a she and never a him, no matter what he says.

By the way, don't you ever call him a him when it's her because of his choice to be her.

STU: Because I think you can take it they put the disclaimer in to push aside liberal complaints about it.

GLENN: Yes, I agree.

STU: You can say that. However, the way they phrase it.

GLENN: The disclaimer is fine. But he starts with this includes Caitlyn.

STU: Legendary decathlete.

GLENN: That's in violation of what he just asked you to do.

PAT: Right. Right. So what -- I think they're covering their butts for other transgendered persons who don't feel the way Caitlyn Jenner does.

GLENN: Aren't we supposed to celebrate diversity?

STU: No. Absolutely not. Not in this circumstance.

GLENN: Aren't we supposed to celebrate what you want to do as an individual?

PAT: No.

GLENN: It exposes that as an absolute lie, and it exposes ESPN as nothing but cowards. Just cowards. This is not the only one, though. Have you seen the ad -- I don't even know. Who is running it?

PAT: NCAA is running it.

GLENN: NCAA. The one. Are we talking about the same ad where they're saying --

PAT: The gender thing?

GLENN: Yeah. Gender doesn't play sports?

PAT: Yeah, listen to this. By the way, these are a whole bunch of different women playing sports here.

>> Enough.

GLENN: Uh-oh.

>> Yeah, I'm over it.

>> We shouldn't need commercials to tell you we're powerful.

>> No thanks.

>> Genders don't play sports.

>> Athletes do.

GLENN: Then why do we have title 9?

PAT: Right. We don't need it anymore. If there's no gender in sports.

GLENN: Why do we have the WNBA? I would really like to suggest to the NBA that they start to draft women.

STU: The NBA subsidizes the WNBA. There would be no Ws in the WNBA if that was the case.

The double standard behind the White House outrage

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.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.