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

Student Activists Against Guns ‘Have a Right to Be Listened to’ – but Here’s the Catch

February 26, 2018
Staff

WRITER

What’s going on?

After the Florida school shooting, teenage survivors turned student activists began fighting for gun control on national media. David Hogg, 17, is one of the activists, and he recently slammed NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch for supposedly controlling Congress and not doing anything – as he defended local law enforcement officers who were warned about the shooter beforehand.

What did he say?

“I don’t want to say anything until after the investigation’s done because I don’t know what happened,” Hogg said of Sheriff Scott Israel. The Broward County Sheriff’s Office is under fire for not flagging a tip about the eventual gunman and missing some serious red flags about his determination to shoot up a school.

While Hogg didn’t presume to know about Israel’s actions, he was certain about Loesch and the power he thinks she has. “She owns these congressmen,” he said.

Glenn’s take:

Glenn, Pat and Stu had a lot of questions about this clip on today’s show – including wondering why Loesch didn’t wield this incredible power over the government on behalf of TheBlaze when she worked here.

“She should have passed things for us,” Stu joked.

Glenn pointed out that while the students should be respected and treated with sympathy, they also can’t expect people not to analyze their arguments.

“They have a right to be listened to,” Glenn said. “They don’t have a right to be listened to unchecked.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: I'd love to have this conversation with you, Pat. I think that we have -- I think we've come to the end of the period of enlightenment.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: Everything that this country was based on was the honest search for truth. Empirical truth. You know what I mean?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I'm not going to listen to a church tell me that they have all this power, that they can do these things because God gives them the power and so I must fall in line. I'm not going to listen to a king tell me he's got all this power because of God. I'm not going to listen to magicians. I want empirical fact.

Now, if you want to go on faith, that's fine. But keep your faith out of the control of the government. The government and -- and faith should not mix when it says -- when it comes down to control of people's lives.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: And we looked for the truth. And let the chips fall where they may. We don't look for that anymore. We're not looking. We're not interested.

PAT: No. We're looking for the win.

GLENN: Exactly right. I -- I am sick of winning.

If this is what winning feels like, I am sick of winning. And we've been playing it now for over 20 years. And I'm sick of it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And no one wants to have honest conversations. You know, this is a problem. I bring the -- let me give you these two audio clips. These are specifically selected for Pat Gray's enjoyment here.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: Because these two moments back-to-back in the same interview tells a heck of a story of where we've been over the last week.

Here's David Hogg, one of the students who has been on every show imaginable. Also was on the same show as you were on this week, on CNN with Brian Stelter, talking about Dana Loesch and the NRA.

DAVID: What Dana is trying to do, I believe she's the CEO of the NRA. She's trying to distract people. If you listen --

VOICE: She's the national spokesperson for the NRA.

DAVID: Exactly. She's a national spokeswoman. And as such, she's a national propagandist for the NRA.

If you listen to her speak, she's not really saying anything. She's sounding positive and confident. And that's what she wants the people in the NRA to believe. She wants people in Congress to pass laws that help out with mental health and things like that. And she says she can't do that.

Are you kidding me? You own these politicians.

You've passed legislation that enables these bump stocks. Which, by the way, aren't allowed at NRA shooting ranges because they're too dangerous. That's how bad they are. But continuing on with my point, she wants Congress to take action and says that they won't. Are you kidding me? She owns these congressmen. She can get them to do things --

PAT: She owns them?

DAVID: -- but she doesn't care about these children's lives.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So he didn't even know who she was at the beginning.

PAT: Right. But he does know that she owns Congress.

STU: And she doesn't care about children's lives, which is odd because she has children. But she doesn't care about children's lives.

PAT: That is interesting. That's interesting.

GLENN: And she owns people, even though she just started with the NRA. She was working with us. I didn't know she had all of those politicians in the pocket.

STU: Yeah. She should have passed stuff for us.

PAT: Wouldn't that have been nice? We could have been on more cable channels probably, damn it.

GLENN: Right.

STU: But again, here is a kid who is put out there as an expert by every media source. Here's a guy, he's got all the passion. He's the guy -- we have to take him seriously. We have to respect all of his views.

We can't say one word of criticism of what he says because that means you just don't care about children, you don't care about the victims of this.

Later on, he's asked not about the NRA, but about the mass disaster that has been Broward County sheriff -- Scot -- what's his name? Israel. I can only think of Sheriff Israel.

And so he's asked about that. Here's what he says.

VOICE: Are you concerned that you might actually lose support if you get too personal, too incendiary?

VOICE: Well, she's already done that by attacking Sheriff Scot Israel, who obviously there were some major mistakes made here and ones that we have to look into.

PAT: Yeah.

VOICE: And I don't want to say anything until after the investigation is done because I don't know what happened. I'm just a student that had to witness this horrifying incident. But honestly, how can you say that you support law enforcement, if you're just constantly attacking them over this?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

VOICE: -- these are the people that are trying to protect our lives. Did they make a mistake? Absolutely. Is that something that we have to fix? Absolutely. But there is a much bigger problem in Washington.

STU: So he's -- so when it's about the NRA, he knows everything about them. He knows that Dana is the CEO and owns all of these politicians, despite her just starting this position pretty recently. But when it comes to the police, wait for the investigation, he's just a student.

PAT: He's just a student. I don't know. What do I know?

STU: He's just a student. You can't ask him those questions. He's just a kid.

PAT: That was kind of my point from the very beginning.

GLENN: Here's what I -- here's what I can't -- I can't get my arms around.

So what did I say to Brian? I said to Brian, you know, to have these emotional crowds was not a good thing. You want to have them on, great. Let them talk.

And his response was, so you think we should have -- you think Jake should have just said shut up?

No, that's not what I said.

PAT: No. That's not what you said at all.

GLENN: I didn't say that. That's really disrespectful.

PAT: You were talking about the kids, in fact. You were talking about the audience.

GLENN: Yeah, the crowd. The crowd.

STU: I don't know what Jake is supposed to do once the crowd is in the room.

GLENN: No, it's too late.

STU: The problematic decision is the crowd being there.

GLENN: That's CNN's decision up front.

STU: Right. Not the representation of these families. You could have been in there, in a room like Trump did. He did a listening session with people who were victims of the shooting.

PAT: And there wasn't screaming over the top of each other either.

STU: Right. Because it was calm -- it was calm discourse.

You put in 5,000 people, all of which are there to just yell at Dana, her position at the NRA, it's a recipe for disaster, and they should have recognized that.

GLENN: Okay. So he doesn't -- he won't listen to that. And wants -- you know, if you -- did you say we shouldn't have had the arena. Then that's akin to saying, we have to tell these kids to shut up.

We have to take these kids -- they have a right to be listened to.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They don't have a right to be listened to unchecked. You had Brian Stelter.

STU: Stelter.

GLENN: I can never say his name. Because I always think of Brian Setzer.

STU: Oh, the orchestra?

GLENN: Yeah. So you have Brian sitting there. And who is sitting on the other side of this kid? Dan freaking Rather. And you hear this kid make this argument that Dana is, you know, the NRA. Which is a little ridiculous. More than a little ridiculous.

And then you have him stick up for this sheriff, who nobody in their right mind is sticking up for the sheriff. No one in their right mind is sticking up for the sheriff.

And there's no discussion at all on -- there's no pushback on him.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: On saying, how does this make sense? I thought you wanted this to stop.

And what makes you think that passing a ban on some guns is going to make any of this stop? There's no evidence of that.

And here's some things that we could take care of right now. Because there could be another shooting, in your county, if this is happening with the sheriff's department. There's no pushback at all.

PAT: Yeah, no.

STU: Well, and I think the reason why the advocacy groups and a lot of the media really like these kids that are -- you know, were victims of this, or at least at the school where this occurred, was because of that. You can't push back. You can't push back on the arguments. So the arguments get smooth sailing. They get this nice clear empty highway to just drive down and say every liberal blog statement that's ever been put out there, without anybody saying anything. Because obviously, you can't push back. The kid obviously doesn't know these points.

PAT: Right.

STU: He's just -- he's obviously reading blogs and --

PAT: He's being exploited. He's being exploited by the left.

STU: Obviously.

GLENN: He's being a 16-year-old that is being given a national platform. That's what's happening.

STU: It's definitely not a word of criticism to him personally.

GLENN: No. But you have to be able to push back on the points, or there's no point in having him on.

PAT: May I remind you though, only you can prevent forest fires.

STU: Wow. Thank you, Pat.

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.