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

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 Woodrow Wilson strategy to get out of Mother’s Day

Stock Montage / Contributor, Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

I’ve got a potentially helpful revelation that’s gonna blow the lid off your plans for this Sunday. It’s Mother’s Day.

Yeah, that sacred day where you’re guilt-tripped into buying flowers, braving crowded brunch buffets, and pretending you didn’t forget to mail the card. But what if I told you… you don’t have to do it? That’s right, there’s a loophole, a get-out-of-Mother’s-Day-free card, and it’s stamped with the name of none other than… Woodrow Wilson (I hate that guy).

Back in 1914, ol’ Woody Wilson signed a proclamation that officially made Mother’s Day a national holiday. Second Sunday in May, every year. He said it was a day to “publicly express our love and reverence for the mothers of our country.” Sounds sweet, right? Until you peel back the curtain.

See, Wilson wasn’t some sentimental guy sitting around knitting doilies for his mom. No, no, no. This was a calculated move.

The idea for Mother’s Day had been floating around for decades, pushed by influential voices like Julia Ward Howe. By 1911, states were jumping on the bandwagon, but it took Wilson to make it federal. Why? Because he was a master of optics. This guy loved big, symbolic gestures to distract from the real stuff he was up to, like, oh, I don’t know, reshaping the entire federal government!

So here’s the deal: if you’re looking for an excuse to skip Mother’s Day, just lean into this. Say, “Sorry, Mom, I’m not celebrating a holiday cooked up by Woodrow Wilson!” I mean, think about it – this is the guy who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, and don’t even get me started on his assault on basic liberties during World War I. You wanna trust THAT guy with your Sunday plans? I don’t think so! You tell your mom, “Look, I love you, but I’m not observing a Progressive holiday. I’m keeping my brunch money in protest.”

Now, I know what you might be thinking.

“Glenn, my mom’s gonna kill me if I try this.” Fair point. Moms can be scary. But hear me out: you can spin this. Tell her you’re honoring her EVERY DAY instead of some government-mandated holiday. You don’t need Wilson’s permission to love your mom! You can bake her a cake in June, call her in July, or, here’s a wild idea, visit her WITHOUT a Woodrow Wilson federal proclamation guilting you into it.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.