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

Were Trump’s Comments During Puerto Rico Visit ‘Insensitive’?

October 04, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Following a public clash with the mayor of San Juan, President Donald Trump visited Puerto Rico, a trip that went smoothly for the most part – although some of his remarks were not as diplomatic as they could have been.

“Now, I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico, but you’ve thrown our budget a little out of whack because we’ve spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico, and that’s fine,” Trump said in his address. “We’ve saved a lot of lives.”

Trump didn’t seem to realize that even though the government is working to help Puerto Rico, there are still a lot of people hurting and struggling.

“When you lay out facts that way, they come across insensitive,” Doc said on Wednesday’s show while filling in for Glenn.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn along with Kris Cruz and Kal. We have to get on to other news including President Trump in Puerto Rico. Before we go any further, I am going to need a disclaimer at this point. I Doc Thompson support much of what the president has done and I think he has been unfairly criticized by the media. I didn't vote for him and I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. I do support him as president and hope he does good things and I have given him fairly high marks on things like the Supreme Court nominee he put forth. Having said that, we will now criticize President Trump. Did you like that?

President Trump has been pretty good with the handling of natural disasters. He did what a president does. You open up the purse swings. There is going to be FEMA money, natural disaster, all of this. Both the governors of Florida and Texas did a good job for the two hurricanes that came through. But President Trump was very good there.

They tried to criticize him, they being the media and the left, for those two. It didn't happen. He did a pretty good job. For Puerto Rico, he did a good job early on but they were not letting it be and had to find ways to come out and criticize him.

I was fine with him criticizing the mayor of San Juan. She is clearly a leftist and was pretending like President Trump was leaving them high and dry even though he had opened up the purse springs and sent the military and National Guard and sent the trauma guard. Having said all of that, when he went to Puerto Rico he looked goofy.

KRIS: It is a sign I like from Trump. When he is visiting things like this, I was super excited. Everything he did literally checked by box.

DOC: Even the throwing the paper towels?

KRIS: We had a good follow-up. He knows he have good basketball players. I will give him that. He was like Puerto Rico, here is your chance.

DOC: He's a good jump shot. But at the full court press he is horrible. He is not playing good D or hustling to the other end of the court and where is his rebound.

If you want to apply him as a jump shot specialist that is fine but you have to play both ends of the court.

KRIS: I will give you that.

DOC: That is the type of sports take you normally don't get on the Glenn Beck program and by that, I mean sports talk.

His comments about money and the budget in Puerto Rico not inaccurate. I know he is a guy who just kind of throws it out there. You got to know you are going to step in it. I know he is not concerned about the media or the left criticizing him but you are not as effective of a leader when you say things like he said.

Here is President Trump talking about the budget:

I hate to tell you, Puerto Rico. You are throwing our budget out of whack because we have spent a lot of money on Puerto Rico and that is fine. We have saved a lot of lives. Every death is a horror but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina and the hundreds of people that died and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overpowering. Nobody has ever seen anything like this.

DOC: This goes to my point when we started the show we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt anymore. He brought it back a little bit when he said people have died. That is fine. He was drawing a comparison to Katrina and that is fine but that is going to get you in trouble every time. As much as many didn't give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean bad things, he also didn't realize there is a lot of people hurting right now. There is a lot of people in Puerto Rico that are struggling. When you lay out facts that way they come across insensitive and in normal circumstances we would say man up, get a little tougher there and that is fine. But while people are still in this much parallel. There are people that are still facing all kinds of challenges. Health challenges. Food and shelter challenges in Puerto Rico. Maybe it was a callus comparison and not good timing. Probably shouldn't have gone there.

I agree. But he was right with the comment about Puerto Rico mishandling their money. Even when I visited Puerto Rico, I looked around and I was like wait a minute. What is going on here? To be a beautiful island. Tourists in San Juan. And you have all this wasted money? Where is it going?

DOC: Puerto Rico just had a default. They went through billions of dollars. This has been something they have been struggling with for decades and keep trying to get out in front of it. There was a bond issue like a lot of different places in America.

States/cities. That was an issue. But you are supposed to plan for those things.

You are supposed to have politicians that say during the lean times when you have stuff coming in you have to put things away and plan for the lean times. Puerto Rico has had sketchy politician and people who have not done what is right. They are not prepared it. We are going to be on the hook at one point for the debt of loss of Puerto Rico like we would be anywhere else. One way or another that is coming. Trump even suggested that.

KRIS: Trump also said he is going to wipe out the debt.

DOC: How is he doing that?

KRIS: I do not know.

DOC: Anything owed to the government he has control over? I don't know if he can unilaterally do that. He likely has money owed through the executive branch like military where he could wipe it out by paying for it somewhere else or something but he is not exclusively in control nor is he to any bond debt that would be owed to people outside the Federal Government.

KRIS: This is a quote he said. He said they owe a lot of money to our friends on Wall Street and we are going to have to wipe that out. You are going to say Good-bye to that. I don't know if is Goldman Sachs or whoever it is but you can wave Good-bye to that.

DOC: He wasn't talking government or executive branch but people on Wall Street. Here is the problem. Wall Street is not some inanimate object not connected to people. Wall Street is a system of investors and ways to invest. Companies and organizations that govern or regulate or you invest through.

Who invests? People. It is easy to say you will have to say Good-bye to that. You will have to do that when you are not the one who loses money. It is not just Mr. Goldman Sachs and I have trillions and I am able to forgive a few million dollars here and there because I am wealthy, Mr. Goldman Sachs. No, Goldman Sachs is a company that invests money for people. If they say Good-bye to that money they are saying Good-bye to the money from people who invested in Puerto Rico. How about you are the little old lady in Indiana who invested part of your retirement in something that invested in Puerto Rico. Should she say Good-bye to that money? Of course not. There are risks that come with it and if that is what he meant that is fine. But if he means we should give that up, that is crazy. It is not for him to say.

KRIS: And the market responded.

DOC: If he is talking about a reset, of course we have to reset. There is going to be a reset in the market. Today? I don't know. Five years from now? I don't know. Eventually it will reset. That is what markets do. It is inflated right now. Eventually it will reset and whether that takes it down 1% or 40% that is what will happen.

KRIS: It dropped to 33 cents on the dollar where last month it was trading around 50 sent on the dollar.

DOC: Another clip of the president.

We will help the people. $72 billion in debt before the hurricane hit. They had a power plant that didn't work before the hurricane. We will help them do something and get it back on its feet. But I am just very, very proud of the fact, you know, if you look at one statistic, 16 deaths. That is a lot of deaths. If you look at Katrina it was in the thousands. We had FEMA here before the storm even came. They were on the island during the storm and before the first storm. They got hit by two hurricanes. We are very proud of the job we have done. Very, very proud. We will have to try to get them back. The power is slowly getting on. The roads are open. The runways are open. If these people you have met today, all of the different people, first responders, these are incredible people.

I totally agree.

DOC: He is accurate. FEMA was there. I give him props. The $72 billion is how much they were out and defaulted on. And power plant trouble, sure. What does he mean we will take care of that?

KRIS: That is another thing that scares me. Puerto Rico is my county. But what does that mean? If a president is saying hey, we are going to take care of it. Last time I checked, well this president has money, but last time I checked the government doesn't owe money. It is my money. So that means I am going to pay for it.

DOC: Exactly. Where is that coming from? It is fine to lead on this but if he was saying we are just going to pony up money I am happy to help people in Puerto Rico even with public funds but I need assurances just like I do in the rest of America that you are actually doing what you have to do. Balance your budget, start paying down the national debt, start finding a way to pay for the unfunded liabilities that will come up over the next 10 years, get your spending under control, come up with a new tax plan, repeal Obamacare. You have to do those things before you promise to build a power plant in Puerto Rico or bail them out of $72 billion.

If the president wants to lead on some sort of primarily private/public partnership, fine. Puerto Rico, there is an opportunity to make money for all of us for Puerto Rico to be a testing ground. It is three and a half, four million people? Not huge geographically wise. But I think broadcast market. San Juan is top 20 or top 15. And it is American territory. Those are Americans.

If you have to rebuild the grid, Kris, let's do it right. Let's do fiber optics and wi-fi throughout the island. The government can't pay for it but if you show people an investment opportunity and we say people of Puerto Rico, I as a private company, want to build and this will be a bigger tourist destination there is opportunities that way. Lead that way. That is awesome.

KRIS: We learned during the morning headlines that Google is sending wi-fi balloons to connect people back to the internet.

DOC: They are what?

KRIS: Sending hot wear balloons.

DOC: Google, one of the most profound technology companies in the world today, that has been a trendsetter for a decade or more and on the cutting edge of things we don't even understand, their big technological solution to helping Puerto Rico get wi-fi established is balloons? Come on?

KRIS: Wi-fi balloons.

DOC: Balloon technology? This is it. We are employing the most advanced balloon technology available. We are here to help. We have balloons. Stand by, Puerto Rico. Hang on, we are inflating them now. You will be up in no time. We have got our IT balloon guys on the ground. They have made landfall.

Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck.

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.

Unveiling the Deep State: From surveillance to censorship

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.