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

This Singer Told People to ‘Love and Value Our Planet’ at a Hurricane Relief Benefit

September 14, 2017
Staff

WRITER

People are wonderful and should love each other … just as long as they all believe in climate change.

That’s the takeaway from Stevie Wonder’s comments during a performance at a star-studded hurricane relief benefit. The “Signed, Sealed, Delivered” singer urged people to set aside all “political persuasions” and care for each other.

People should value one another “as we should begin to love and value our planet,” Wonder said. “And anyone who believes that there is no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent.”

Glenn pointed out two key lessons to be learned here:

1 --- We know from the hurricane aftermath that good causes don’t need celebrity names anymore since only a small amount of funding came from Hollywood.

2 --- We should expect kindness to be accompanied with politics from progressives.

Instead, “let’s actually love people. Let’s actually serve people,” Glenn said. If you’re going to reach out to people, you need to be kind without bringing in political qualifications like the need to believe in climate change.

“Let’s stop hating each other,” Glenn said. “Let’s start seeing that we are alike and start seeing humanity in each other.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So while we're here, let's talk about all of the wonderful things that Hollywood is doing to help out the victims of the hurricane.

They've just had a big gala, where they raised $44 million. Wow. They had a TV network. They had every star known to man. And they raised $44 million.

There's a football player who just raised by himself $32 million.

STU: J.J. Watt.

GLENN: Thirty-two by himself. He did that, you know, with Twitter. "I don't know, I'm thinking about raising some money. You want to help?"

Thirty-two million dollars later. You spend all of this money, all of this production. You bring in every star -- and I'm sure they all -- they were all driving the Leaf. None of them were driving anything that was -- seriously, they were all driving a Leaf. And you brought them all together. And, you know, you had the catering trucks and the catering tents. And everything else, congratulations, $44 million. What happened here? Why only $44 million.

Because Hollywood is irrelevant and they don't even know it. Hollywood -- everybody is sick -- I mean everybody on both sides. They don't need you anymore. To raise money, you don't need people like me anymore. You don't need anybody. You don't need celebrity. You don't need anything.

If you have a good cause and you have a direct way to help, you're going to -- it's great. This is technology.

We don't need the celebrities. And could the celebrities help? Yes. Yes.

J.J. Watt, he's helping. He is helping.

The problem is, they fail to look at what he did, and that is, "Wow. People need help. Let's help them."

And then, I'm not trying to make a political point, I'm not trying to make any point whatsoever, let's just help them.

Is anybody else -- is anybody else bothered, when you go to church -- and every church is like this, when you go to church, and they start talking about how you need to love people so you can bring them in to get baptized. That drives me out of my mind.

STU: Yeah, that whole loving people to join the faith sounds terrible. Hmm.

GLENN: No. No. It does to me. And maybe because -- and maybe because I've just -- I've had shields up on that for so long. And now that I'm sitting in a congregation and I hear people say these things, what it translates to me as, "How can we get people baptized? I know, let's love them."

STU: Again, this does not sound bad. You're saying it's translating to you in a way that it sounds good. If you believe in the faith, you want people to be baptized. You want people to see the light, right? And a good way to do that -- is it hate? If you don't want love, what do you want?

GLENN: I know.

No, this is the intent. Because -- and I don't think is in the intent of the churches. I think this is the -- this is how it's interpreted by some. And that is, we want to change people's minds, so let's go in and become their friends.

Well, that's good.

STU: Isn't this the entire --

GLENN: Would you listen to me for a second? Would you let me finish? Would you let me finish?

STU: Every day on the show --

GLENN: No. Let's love people. Let's actually love people. Let's actually serve people.

Now, I said, it's not the intention, it's how it sounds, especially when it's -- when it's in churches. It sounds this way.

And it's why -- it's why I think we fail. I think we fail as churches sometimes. We fail with people. Because we have another intent. Our intent is to get you to believe what we believe.

No, that's not my intent. My intent is to get you to see that I'm just like you. I just -- I'm just like you. I don't need you to believe what I believe. We just have to stop hating each other. That's my goal. Let's stop hating each other. Let's start seeing that we are alike and start seeing humanity in each other. Let's just see that, you know what, you could hate me, but why don't you hate me for real, authentic reasons. Okay?

STU: Right.

GLENN: Why don't you hate me for that?

Until that time, how about we just love each other and cut each other some slack and help one another?

And it's my belief that if you are a happy and genuine person, somebody in your life is going to say, "You know what, I can't figure this out. You seem to have this mastered. What is it that you have?" Well, I'll tell you. I'll tell you.

That's your opportunity. But we set out, sometimes, we set out with, I'm going to get them in the boat. I'm going to get them in the boat. I'm going to get them baptized. I'm going to do X, Y, or Z. You know what, do your part. And that is, love people. We're missing the love people part.

Actually do that. No other agenda. Love people.

When you love people, they will see, "Wow, I like that guy. I like those people. I may not agree with those people. But I like them." Then you have all kinds of opportunities ahead of you. Then that's the time to talk about those opportunities.

Hollywood is not -- they did not do this because they genuinely love the people in -- in Houston. Maybe some of them did. But far too many of them started doing things like Stevie Wonder. Listen to Stevie Wonder.

(music)

STEVIE: We've come together today to love on the people that have been devastated by the hurricanes.

GLENN: Great. Great. Great.

STEVIE: When love goes into action, it preferences no color of skin.

GLENN: Oh, boy. Here we go.

STEVIE: No ethnicity.

GLENN: Agenda.

STU: But, I mean, that's true.

STEVIE: Beliefs.

GLENN: Agenda. Agenda. Agenda.

STEVIE: No sexual preferences and no political persuasions. It just loves.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Okay. Good.

STEVIE: As we should begin to love and value our planet --

GLENN: Agenda.

STEVIE: -- and anyone who believes that there's no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent.

GLENN: Agenda. Okay. That sounds like --

STU: Wait. A blind guy is telling us that.

GLENN: Yeah. And that's love. That's a prayer. That's a prayer.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That's a prayer. You must be blind or unintelligent.

STU: Amazing. I mean, of course, as it relates to hurricanes, that is not what -- even the global warming thesis says, that there's going to be more hurricanes. They actually say there's been a decrease since 1880 in the number of hurricanes hitting the United States of America. You know, that's an amazing thing.

And I think you kind of look at that and you say, why apply that there? Why insert that into the middle of this? Because you're right, like the other stuff you're talking about, agenda, agenda. You're looking at it -- I mean, I hate to point this out, but you're looking at this in a cynical sort of way, right?

GLENN: It's Hollywood, yes. They deserve that. Yes.

STU: A correct cynical way. But, you know, there's nothing wrong with saying, "We embrace all races." Of course. Those are things we actually believe.

GLENN: There's not. There's not. I do.

STU: You just don't believe it from these people because people in Hollywood are constantly coming with an agenda. And then he proves the point seconds later.

GLENN: Correct. Yes. Look, if he said -- if he said everything that he said, "Look, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you have the Confederate flag, you don't want to -- or, you don't want to stand for the American flag. It doesn't matter. We have to love you and serve you. Period." That would have been great.

STU: It doesn't matter if you believe Harvey and Irma were caused by global warming or you feel like we've seen these storms a million times before and it's no big difference.

GLENN: Exactly right. We have to love you.

STU: We're there for you. And, again, it's not that way. You're an idiot. You're blind. You're unintelligent. They can't help themselves.

GLENN: No, they can't. Because -- because their agenda is more important. And, look, I want to make this really clear. Do I want people to find the joy that I have found in my faith? You bet I do. You bet I do.

STU: You should, right?

GLENN: I have found great joy -- I am alive today because of that. I would not have made it without that.

So I -- I do want to share that. But that's not my agenda. That's not what I get up for in the morning. That doesn't -- I'm sorry. But that is -- to me, I don't even think that was Christ's agenda. That was the result. He knew that would be the result of the way he lived his life and loving everyone, truly loving everyone. Where are your accusers now?

He's -- he won't stone somebody who broke one of his laws. He won't stone them.

Where are your accusers?

Does that mean he -- does that mean he was endorsing her? No.

His agenda is love. Love. And did she go back and -- and get right back into bed with somebody else? Probably not.

How many people -- we don't know this. But how many people did she change because he just showed love? He didn't stop and say, hey, by the way, and the only way is through me. He didn't do that. He said, "Where are your accusers? Well, I'm not going to condemn you either. Go and sin no more." That's it.

That's it. Oh, by the way, I did save you, so now I have to do this. Now you have to believe these things.

No, he loved. All of our love, it seems to have an agenda. All of the love in the world seems to have an agenda. An agenda-driven love will not change anything.

$44 million. That's nice. It's nice. When Hollywood stops with the agenda, maybe they'll be able to make a big impact again.

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.