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

Both Sides Are Being Played: It's Time to Renounce the Hate Because 'This Is All About 2018 and 2020'

August 16, 2017
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

I want to start by asking you, if you're somebody that needs blood, if you're somebody that needs to be angry, if you're somebody that needs to rub the nose of whomever in whatever, this is not the show for you.

If you're tired of all of this, if you think we're better than this, if you think we have to solve this problem, then this is the show for you.

But the way we're going, the world has gone before. The way we're going will end with either the communists rounding up and slaughtering those who disagree with them or the Nazis, rounding people up that disagree with them and slaughtering them.

I'm sorry. But I don't have a thing in common with these Nazis and the white supremacists. None of it. None of them.

My gosh, I've gotten in trouble on both the right and the left for talking about the evils of Nazis for the last 15 or 20 years.

I want nothing to do with them. And I also want nothing to do with the radical anarchist communists who show up in black masks with baseball bats and burn our cities down. I want nothing to do with people who are saying, "Our heritage is our white heritage." And I want nothing to do with people who are saying, "Our heritage is our black heritage." It's not!

We are humans. All of us. Each of us.

I can't take the left, and I can't take the right. I can't watch either side of the media anymore. Does anybody really care about our country anymore?

Please don't give me lip service. I about caused a panic in my own church, when I started teaching the 15-year-olds and I started asking them about, you know, "tell me what you know about the Bible and tell me that you know that Jesus is, you know, the savior. And how many people here, you know, firmly believe in the Bible?" And they all dutifully raised their hand. And I said, "Shut up. Put your hands down. No, you don't. How do you know that? How do you know that?"

If you can tell me a story about how you searched and searched and searched and how you prayed -- right now, you know it because somebody else has told you it's true. So how many people care about our country? Everybody is going to raise their hand. Really? So what is the tough thing that you have done? What's the thing that you have stood up against that made you a pariah in your own circle? Because I got news for you, it's not the left's fault and it's not the right's fault. It's all of our faults. All of us. We're all playing the same game. And if you're not man enough or brave enough to admit that, then I invite to you stay with us. But as you say in AA meetings, when somebody comes and they have fallen off the wagon and they're still drinking, "You know what, this is probably a good meeting for you to just listen."

Americans --- and hear me --- Americans, and I believe it's 90 percent, but let's be totally crazy. I'll say it's only 70 percent --- 60 percent. Only 60 percent of Americans. And I think that number is wildly wrong.

Most Americans don't want anything to do with the Nazis or the anarchists and the communists. Nothing. They have nothing in common. They despise them both.

Most Americans --- and, yes, that includes the left. And, left, if you happen to be listening, that includes the right. We want nothing to do with it. They're both crazy, dangerous, and racist, period.

And here's what's happening: The media, because they hate Donald Trump so much, and the right media, because they hate the media so much, are giving America a false choice.

You don't condemn Donald Trump, really. Not even the Nazis. You don't condemn Donald Trump. You are choosing the side of the Nazis. And if you don't defend -- on the right, if you don't defend Donald Trump, then you're a communist anarchist that might as well be burning down Berkeley.

Neither of those are true. That's not our choice. You with the black nationalists or the white nationalists? I'm not with either of them.

The Democrats co-opted a very small sliver of radicals that despise capitalism, that despise America, that despise white people, that despise the cops. They co-opted them, thinking they could control them. They'll bring them in because it will add fuel.

Now, right, if you're shaking your head right now and going, "Yep, that's exactly what they did," you'll shake your head even more when I say, "And they lost that battle. They have lost their soul. Those guys are the heart of the party, not the average Democrat, but the party."

Now, let me speak to the left: And you're going to shake your head. And the Republicans are all going to be pissed. But the Republicans did the same damn thing. First of all, it was the Republicans that started the progressive movement. So they've had progressives in their ranks from the very beginning. But what have they done in the last three years? They've co-opted the alt-right. Because why? Because they're racists? No.

Because every vote counts. And so we'll use them. And what's happening? The same thing that happened to the Democrats.

And why did each side do it? Because it drives money and it drives votes. Hate drives money and drives votes.

And so where does that leave the average person? Well, 80 percent of Americans haven't seen a wage increase. Most Americans have their kids in a school that they know is not preparing their children for anything, other than politically correct living, other than living in a Marxist state. It's not preparing them for anything.

There's no actual education happening. There's a re-education happening in our failing schools. And, you know what, don't tell me that that's a thing on the right because the left knows it. Watch the lefties talk about education at TED talks, where they condemn the failing American education system.

The left knows it too. We both do. None of us can afford college anymore for our kids. Barely any of us can afford health care anymore. That's what's happening with 80 percent of the nation. Maybe more.

Are you seeing those people reflected at all? No.

Instead, both parties are doing their best, just trying to get reelected. This is all about 2018 and 2020. This isn't about anything else. This isn't about you. This isn't about real problems. This is about 2018 or 2020. Period. That's all this is about.

Dividing and spreading lies about 50 percent of the population -- well, I want to make sure you understand: If you're watching the left media, they're lying about 50 percent of the population. And if you're watching the right media, they're lying about the other 50 percent of the population. The truth is, there's probably 10 percent of those freaks on the right and 10 percent of those freaks on the left. And the rest of us want nothing to do with them.

It's why I reject both parties, and I reject the media. Both right and left. I want nothing to do with you.

I will remove myself from the game happily before I lose my soul. Can I just ask -- I don't need to ask you because I know the average American gets this. Can I ask those who are engaged in this insane death game, how does this end? Play it out, how does it end? Does it end in race riots, civil war, global war? Your side winning in 2020, whichever side that is? And then -- and then we really get them? What do you do with the remainder of the people, the 40 percent that just will not go along?

Well, first you have to demonize them. Oh, we've already done that. Then what do we do? You shove and then you shoot.

Now, maybe 20 percent of the United States is effing out of their mind. Maybe the country has gone out of its mind crazy. But I am sorry. I do not believe, because I have too many friends on both sides of the aisle and the issues, that disagree, who are afraid of their own side. They are seeing where this is leading, and they want nothing to do with it. So maybe it's 20 percent that's crazy. But that leaves 80 percent of us who want nothing to do with it.

We all want our children to have health care, food. We all want our children to have a good education. I believe we all want our troops to come home. We want an end to the endless wars.

I want justice for the wronged. I want an end to racism. It's never going to leave us. Because that's a human trait. But we can do better than we are.

I want an end to poverty. It's never going to leave us. But we're the most charitable people that have ever lived. I want freedom for people who are enslaved today. There are more people enslaved today than in the entire history of western slavery, combined.

I want an end of oppression. I want an end to government and banking and corporate corruption.

I want the truth of American history to be known. I don't think there's been anybody on the right, perhaps in the history of the right, that has tried to do more to expose the bad parts of our history. To expose how racist, how dangling, how ugly we have been.

But you can't just tell that part of the story. That makes the glorious parts of our history better. We reached beyond the slime. We reached above ourselves. We saw something better.

I want history taught. I want the bitter. I want the sweet. I want the bad cops to go to jail. I want them to go to jail. But I want the good cops to know, "I can't begin to understand your job. But as long as you're on the right side of the law, as long as you're on the right side of human decency, I got your back." I want compassion on the border. But I also want justice and law and order. I want you to live as who you want to live as, love who you want to love, worship God, don't worship God, and we can live side by side.

How do we not agree on some of these big things? I want you to know, I'm going to say some things today that are going to make both sides uncomfortable. Good. Good.

Then I've done my job. And no more.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.