It's not easy being Green

GLENN BECK PROGRAM


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: Anyway, I was watching it on Fox and they are running the little Frank Luntz meter thing where he gets all of these people in a room with a focus group and they turn the knob and then the ratings on how exactly -- you know, whether people like it or not -- hang on just a second. John, what are you doing? You're driving me out of my mind. I can't concentrate. I'm riddled with ADD. I can't do it. Do you need an adjustment on the microphone? Is that what you need? Okay.

I can hear you, John. I can hear you, for the love of Pete.

All right. So they had the little Peter on, you know, what the focus group thought, you know, of what everybody was saying and I have to tell you, Alan Keyes and Ron Paul, race to the bottom. It was unbelievable. It was the way to watch it because if you've ever watched these debates and you're like, jeez, that was really good or that was really bad; I wonder if anybody else is feeling this way. On a third of the screen was the ratings and how much people were like, oh, jeez, shut this guy up; or, I love that. And it was interesting to watch because you could see the key words. You could see. When anybody started talking about the border, which they really didn't talk about the border very much because I don't know, was this a high school journalism person that was asking the questions? The moderator was the worst.

STU: Yeah, she was getting hammered. They were saying, though, Glenn, that they weren't going to talk about Iraq or immigration because Iowa voters already had heard enough from the candidates about those things.

GLENN: Oh, okay. Good.

STU: That's the explanation on that one.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. So we're going to ask about other things. Like here's my favorite: Raise your hand if you think global warming is a big threat. What, are we in the third grade? Raise your hand if you think global -- you know what? I've got to tell you. You know who scored big yesterday with me? Fred Thompson. You know, I've been watching Fred Thompson. I don't think that Fred Thompson is a dynamo by any stretch of the imagination, but yesterday was the Fred Thompson that I have been expecting to see and wanting to see. I don't know if it was just me. I know, I know, I know, I know: "Well, Glenn, he was on your show. Of course you like him now." Yeah, that's me, in a nutshell. I wasn't impressed with Fred Thompson even when he was on the radio show, and I told you that afterwards. Yesterday I was impressed with Fred Thompson.

Do we have the answer to the global warming question?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Go ahead.

(Archive playing.)

VOICE: Is that yes or no for you? Do you believe that global climate change is a serious threat?

SENATOR THOMPSON: Do you want to give me a minute to answer that?

VOICE: No, I don't.

SENATOR THOMPSON: Then I'm not going to answer it.

GLENN: Do you believe global warming is a serious threat and caused by human activity? Yes or no? Oh, gee, hang on. Because there's no nuance in this answer at all. I mean, what is that?

STU: I actually read that the meters actually spiked higher than anything in the entire debate when he answered that question like that as far as the approval rating of that response.

GLENN: The two spikes in the show, that one, and the downward spike was Alan Keyes. Ooh. Alan Keyes gets all up in his Kermit the frog kind of impression and starts, "Well, let me tell you something, a lot of stuff being passed up here. It's not easy being green." And in fact, Dan?

DAN: Yes?

GLENN: Do we have any audio of Kermit the frog and audio of Alan Keyes?

DAN: I can find -- I can get some here.

GLENN: I just -- I mean, I can't take the man seriously.

STU: Yeah. Is that why he was included in the debate? Was it because it was a tip of the hat?

GLENN: I think Alan Keyes on that question should have raised his hand and said, it ain't easy being green. I think that's the way he should have answered the question.

STU: Why was he there, Glenn? He hasn't been in any of the other debates.

GLENN: Because if you're in Iowa, you can be in any of the debates as long as you have an office there.

STU: Yeah, but you have to be 1% of the polls, you have to have an office there and you have to just basically be an official candidate but then why isn't Kucinich in the Democratic one? Why isn't Gravel in the Democratic one?

GLENN: I don't have any idea. I don't have any idea, but it was a race to the bottom with him and Ron Paul. Ron Paul, every time Ron Paul and Alan Keyes spoke, if you were looking at those charts, and I'm sure that Fox News is part of the grand conspiracy. I know I've heard that everyone that works at Fox News on those ratings things, they're all part of a government conspiracy. They're all CIA agents (whispering.). but every time they started to talk, just race to the bottom. And by the way, I just want you to know, Ron Paul, Dr. Paul, is going to be on the program for a full hour Tuesday night television. Don't miss an hour of Ron Paul on television this coming Tuesday.

STU: This is big news, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

STU: He's accepted your invitation.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: This is a huge development. You get a whole hour with him?

GLENN: Whole hour.

STU: Excited.

GLENN: Yeah. Now, they have requested that it is played in its entirety and not to edit it, which is hysterical because you should see the chain of e-mail after they wrote to me last night and said Ron Paul's going to be on the program, and I immediately wrote back and said, it must not be edited because I refuse to hear a single person say, "They edited it to make him look ridiculous!" Nope. Won't be edited at all and it will be a fair and open conversation with Ron Paul who, some of his supporters are great. Some of his supporters have been threatening my life, but we'll talk to Ron Paul about it on Tuesday, and it's sure going to be great.

Do we have the Kermit the frog and Alan Keyes?

STU: Yeah, looks like we do here, Glenn.

GLENN: Go ahead.

KEYES: What I think a lot of folks out there understand what you're watching in our country.

(It's not easy being green.)

GLENN: Okay, stop for a second. Go back to Alan Keyes.

KEYES: I don't know who you should vote for in the Iowa caucuses. Who represents the voice that they're absolutely determined to overlook in the discussion of our sovereignty and the betrayal of this people's sovereignty.

(It's not easy being green.)

GLENN: I'm telling you. I'm telling you.

KEYES: On the border, on our moral principles, on the major export overseas with --.

(It's not easy being green.)

KEYES: Is our jobs. These folks represent the very elites who year after year after year have destroyed our Constitution.

GLENN: You know what it is? You know what it is? It's Kermit the frog pissed off. That's what Alan Keyes is, a really pissed off Kermit the frog. It's like Kermit was -- it's not easy being green. It's, "It's not easy being green!" If you just imagine Kermit the frog really pissed off, you get Alan Keyes. Maybe it's just me, but I can't help it. Every time I see him I think... hi ho.

By the way, have you seen that Nancy Pelosi has spent $16,000 on flowers? $16,000 on flowers for her office because she had dignitaries coming in. By the way, Denny Hastert never spent any flowers for his office. She spent $16,000 in the last year. Do these people think we're made of money? Because by the way, that's your money. You've spent $16,000 on flowers, and she had them brought in -- hang on just a second -- for the dignitaries that she welcomed. She welcomed prime minister Ehud Olmert, she welcomed French president Sarkozy and Jordan's King Abdullah. $16,000. First of all, let me just point out I'm just think that Ehud Nicky and Abdullah could give a flying crap about flowers. I'm sure they all walked in and went, oh, my gosh, look at this, look at this bouquet; that is so welcoming; thank you so much.

Do you think these guys care? They're guys, for the love of Pete! What guy is saying, "Oh, my gosh. This is lovely." Do we really need to have flowers, $16,000 in flowers? When are these guys going to get it? When are these guys in Washington going to get it?

END TRANSCRIPT

Here are the TOP 5 reasons to STOP sending aid to Ukraine NOW

SERGEI BOBYLYOV / Contributor | Getty Images

On his Wednesday episode of Glenn TV, Glenn dove into the top 5 arguments for AND against sending aid to Ukraine. Earlier this week, we covered the top five reasons to continue sending aid to Ukraine—and why they're wrong. Here are Glenn's top 5 reasons to stop sending money to Ukraine NOW.

We can't afford to continue to bankroll this war. 

Inflation is already at all-time highs, and we CONTINUE to spend money we don’t have. Inflation reached a 40-year high in 2022, and, contrary to the Left's mental gymnastics trying to prove otherwise, it is not easing up. Our economy is in dire straights, and we are signing up for economic disaster by continuing to pass omnibus bills that send billions of dollars to Ukraine.

Moreover, happens if an additional conflict happens elsewhere that directly threatens the United States supply chain? Shouldn't we be focusing on boosting U.S. manufacturing independence to make us less economically dependent on foreign adversaries?

Finally, the U.S.'s military reserves are dangerously depleted. A Heritage Foundation study found that military stockpiles are being sent over to Ukraine at faster rates than the U.S. can produce. The study says that much of the supplies will not be able to be replenished for YEARS, leaving the U.S. in a critically vulnerable state. Do we want to risk our OWN national security for a perpetual war with no end goal OR end date in sight?

Defending democracy is NOT our job.

Many, including conservatives, believe that the U.S. needs to defend democracy wherever it is threatened. This is NOT our job—we are not the world's democracy police. However, defending the United States however IS our job. Isn’t this kind of rhetoric EXACTLY what has kept us in a state of perpetual war for the past 20 years? Will we ever learn? The same people who criticized the perpetual U.S. presence and funding in Afghanistan are rushing us to yet ANOTHER 20-year-long conflict. Is this really in the U.S.'s best interest?

The risk of nuclear war is real.

Is this EVER a risk that should be taken? Russia has already declared that Crimea is their homeland. If we support Ukraine as they try and take back Crimea, wouldn’t that be a direct attack on Russia? That would fall in line with Russian nuclear doctrine, greenlighting the use of nuclear weapons. Whether you agree with Russia’s claims to that land is irrelevant… THEY believe it. Should we risk giving Russia more fodder to justify the use of nuclear weapons? Is that truly in the best interest of the American people?

World War III is a very real possibility.

​World War III is a MUCH more real possibility than our leaders are letting on. Examine this very real possibility: what if Russia decides that the losses they are taking from Western weapons are too great, so they decide to attack where the weapons are coming in from? Places like Poland, a NATO member, would be first on the list. That would trigger Article 5 and World War III would commence. This could be ​our Sarajevo moment when one retaliation catalyzes a new world war. Countries like China, who is already considering sending weapons to Russia, would be forced to choose sides. Don't forget Iran and North Korea, who are already ​militarily aiding Russia. Is Ukraine worth that risk?

The global supply chain is at risk.

The pandemic has already turned the supply chain upside down. This war has made things even worse. What happens if the war expands beyond Ukraine? How high are we willing to let gas and food prices to get? How long will it take for civil unrest to break out into the streets?

Glenn covered a wide array of topics this week. Amid the shocking admission from the FBI and DOE confirming the Wuhan lab leak theory, Glenn calls for accountability over the authoritarian leaders who used the pandemic to rob the American people of their Constitutional powers. Glenn also continues to be one of the most outspoken voices against the ongoing U.S. aid to Ukraine, arguing that we are marching toward World War III. Here are the TOP 13 quotes capturing Glenn's best radio moments this week.

"I believe Thomas Jefferson was right. Count on the American people. Not the government. Count on the people."

From the Feb. 28, 2023 radio broadcast.

"We are all individuals and unique entities. God gave you and me and everyone else a brain, a heart, a spirit. Those things are OURS—nobody else's."

From the Feb. 28, 2023 radio broadcast.

"The government holds no authority, over the truth. Let me say it again. The government holds no authority, over the truth."

From the Feb. 28, 2023 radio broadcast.

"I don't want vengeance. I don't even want to be right. I just want to know what the truth is."

From the Feb. 28, 2023 radio broadcast.

"Given the rise in mental health conditions, and the way we engage in political discussions in the U.S., it might be fair to say, we aren't dealing with our fears particularly well."

From the Mar. 03, 2023 radio broadcast.

"I can't believe, as people who grew up with Martin Luther King, I have to explain this to you. It's the content of your character that matters. If you care about skin color, you have become the racist."

From the Mar. 03, 2023 radio broadcast.

"We have a lack of faith in the truth of God. The eternal truths."

From the Mar. 03, 2023 radio broadcast.

"There's a great evil happening in our country. And it is easy to define. We just have to start saying it out loud."

From the Mar. 03, 2023 radio broadcast.

"This is what happens when American power is diminished. I've been telling you this for years. The minute America has no credibility, not only will we rapidly come under attack from everybody who has ever hated us, but the world will spiral into chaos."

From the Mar. 02, 2023 radio broadcast.

"We're doing is sending our money, over to the most corrupt country in the world, and making ourselves a bigger target."

From the Mar. 02, 2023 radio broadcast.

"In theory, we live in a democracy, where the power of the government is constrained through the structure of the Constitution and the will of the people.In practice, however, both limiting factors can be removed in the case of an emergency. A cunning leader knows that power once granted, is rarely returned. And it is very difficult for the public to hold anyone accountable, after the fact."

From the Mar. 03, 2023 radio broadcast.

"When an emergency presents the opportunity to achieve power, under the state of exception, it is always best to manufacture the narrative, to secure that power as quickly as possible, and then make the adjustments later after the power is firmly in hand. The pandemic allowed for the creation of an indefinite state of exception, during which the regime could lock down its political opponents and unleash its own supporters upon those who opposed them."

From the Mar. 03, 2023 radio broadcast.

"Someone must pay the price, for what is happening in our society. Or nothing changes."

From the Mar. 03, 2023 radio broadcast.

THE DOCUMENTS for the 'Arming Ukraine Debate' Glenn TV special

Laurent Van Der Stockt / Contributor, NICHOLAS KAMM / Contributor | Getty Images

Are you in favor of ongoing aid to Ukraine? Glenn is one of the most outspoken critics of sending aid, arguing that we have become a proxy Ukrainian government and an active participant in the war against Russia. He has also warned we are on a path toward World War III.

However, many conservative leaders believe that supporting Ukraine is in the U.S.'s best national interests. Glenn wanted to give his audience BOTH sides of this important debate. On Wednesday night's Glenn TV special, Glenn hosted two experts, one in favor of ongoing support to Ukraine and one against it.

Glenn wants YOU to be informed about this crucial issue—that's why he is giving his newsletter subscribers EXCLUSIVE access to the documents containing the research and Glenn's pro and con arguments over Ukrainian aid.

Do your own homework

Not already signed up for Glenn's newsletter or missed the one with the documents? No problem. Sign up below we'll email you a PDF of the documents connected to this special, so you can download it directly to your device.

Watch the full special below (or watch on BlazeTV here):


Let me put the language surrounding the war in Ukraine into perspective. I think you will have your eyes opened to what we are REALLY facing.

Dmitry Medvedev. You remember him, right? He's the former Russian President from 2008-2012 who went on to become Prime Minister. He wrote a chilling op-ed piece in the state-run newspaper indicating that there's a REAL nuclear threat if the U.S. continues to supply arms to Ukraine. He, along with Vladimir Putin has invoked the nuclear option in an effort to deter the U.S.-led NATO alliance from arming Ukraine.

RELATED: Tune in TONIGHT on BlazeTV at 9 pm ET for the Glenn TV special exclusively on Russia and the war in Ukraine

Medvedev, who currently serves as a deputy chairman of the powerful security council of Russia, dangled the prospects of peace talks while demanding the immediate halt of all arms shipments to Ukraine. He wrote, "Any existential threat to Russia, would not be decided on the front in Ukraine but would spiral into an existential threat to all of human civilization. We do not need a world without Russia." He was echoing the words that Putin said on Sunday:

The U.S. and its NATO allies want to inflict a strategic defeat on us. The aim is to make our people suffer. How can we ignore their nuclear capabilities in these conditions? They have tried to reshape the world exclusively on their terms. We have no choice, but to react. If Washington gets its way, Russia will be divided into Moscow, the Urals, and other disparate regions. It would be a world without Russia.

Most people, who are not paying attention—and I mean politicians—do not know what that phrase means: "We do not need a world without Russia." It is a very important phrase, the same one that Medvedev used in his op-ed. We must first understand the origin of that phrase to understand its significance, and it harkens back to the deeply dangerous man influencing the Russian government behind the curtain, the modern-day Rasputin, Alexander Dugin.

I have, for a long time, read everything I could on the political philosopher Aleksander Dugin. He's a really bad guy, as I've been telling you for a long time. He explicitly states that he wants to bring about a new world order, ruled by Russia, ushering the world to its end.

There's an award-winning journalist in Moscow named Andrey Loshak, who has been speaking out against Dugin. I want you to read an excerpt of his research about Dugin translated into English. He is warning against dismissing Dugin as a "petty fraudster," interested in nothing but money, or a "windbag," who excites only Western political scientists. But I must warn you: we should NOT underestimate his influence, no matter how crazy we find his ideas, especially because those ideas tend to become reality.

Here is the excerpt

I remember accidentally attending a lecture by Dugin, on angelic entities in the late '90s. It was an unbearable exercise in transcendental sophistry, dealing mainly with the image of Lucifer. The fallen angel. There were about 20 people of indeterminate age and gender in the auditorium, and I thought at the time, that perhaps they too were fallen angelic entities, who have come to listen to a lecture about themselves.

In the mid-naughties, I ran into Dugin at a gig at the Akira Club. He dearly loved English apocalyptic folk music for its commitment to Nazi Satanism. His daughter, Daria, apparently did as well. (I recently saw a post about how she did the Nazi salute at a Death in June gig in Moscow.)

It was also in the noughties [between 2000 and 2010] that I visited the summer camp of Dugin’s Eurasian Youth Union (ESM). A building at a dilapidated holiday resort near Zvenigorod had been rented for this purpose. A building at a dilapidated resort near Zelengrad that had been rented for this purpose.

There were not many young people in attendance, about thirty or forty. Many were wearing Russian peasant shirts, because Dugin had realized that his Nazi-Satanist strategy had no great future in modern Russia, and so he had declared himself an Old Believer. [Glenn: An old believer is an Eastern Orthodox Christian, who thinks that the reforms of 1652 and 1666 were too modern].

Before meals, a round-faced bearded man would proclaim in a bass voice, “Angels at the table!” and those present would cross themselves. At night, the young people lined up with lighted torches on the banks of the Moscow River to take "The Oath of a Eurasian."

Back then, Dugin adored the black magic, ceremonies, and rituals [...]. He and [composer and musician Sergey] Kuryokhin had bonded over this stuff, and Dugin had ignited Kuryokhin with fascist ideas (eventually burning him to a crisp). The wording of the oath was pompous and not bereft of poetry. I recall that the word “will” was intoned more often than curses against “Atlanticist” liberals. [Glenn: That would be us, the people of the sea, as he calls them. Or Atlanticists, people of the North Atlantic Treaty. Will in mind, will in mind, the puny lads and lasses repeated in unison after Dugin].

It would have smacked of Triumph of the Will were it not for the outward appearance of the young Eurasians, which was far from Aryan perfection. At the time, I couldn’t have imagined, of course, that a goofy postmodern cult would someday become the ideological mainstream, and that by 2022 the entire country would be caught up in this sect.

In 2011, the party youth under the leadership of Dugin staged the occult mystery play Finis Mundi (The End of the World) at the ESM’s summer camp. Darya, by the way, played the role of a sacrificial victim who voluntarily self-immolates in order to save Russia. As the girl is burning, a man’s voice proclaims, “Cross yourself with fire, Rus! Burn up in the fire and save your diamond from the black furnace!”

The extravaganza’s director described the concept of the production as follows: "We have to bring the end of the world closer. Antonin Artaud said there is only one means of curing the world’s disease—burning the world, which I illustrated in the play’s final scene, in which the burning of the universe takes place."

In the finale, Dugin came on stage and said, "We have lived three days of our life towards death. I don’t think that the scenes you have staged need to be deciphered. The hermeneutics of the world’s end is the task that faces you in the future."

It is obvious, though, that Dugin is obsessed with the idea of bringing the world to a purgatory apocalypse, after which the Great Eurasian Empire of the End will be born. And he has quite consistently pursued this goal. When the “conservative turn” dawned, Dugin moved away from occult postmodernism, focusing instead on the topic of “tradition,” for which there was a sudden demand. The Kremlin had been frantically searching for new ideologemes with which to oppose the official enemy, liberalism.

Dugin finally turned from a bohemian guru into a sought-after ideologue of the regime. There is one convincing bit of evidence that speaks to this being the case. In 2014, Dugin ends his programmatic article about the ideology of the new Russia as follows: "Russia will either be Russian—that is, Eurasian, that is, the core of the great Russian World—or it will disappear. But then it would be better that everything disappear. There is simply no reason to live in a world without Russia."

Four years later, Putin would repeat this idea almost verbatim in an interview with [TV talk-show host Vladimir] Solovyov on the topic of the nuclear threat: “Why do we need such a world if there is no Russia there?” Dugin had seemingly managed to captivate the dictator with his most terrible idea: hastening the world’s end.

In this context, Darya’s death appears especially ominous. Many people were struck by the young woman’s funeral today. [They were struck] by the behavior of a father who had lost his daughter [but] delivered propaganda tirades in an unnaturally trembling voice and appealed [to Russians] to fight to the bitter end. Moreover, I had the strange feeling that Dugin was directing this spectacle.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but this looks as if it came from the playbook of the stager of occult mystery plays and black masses, and not that of a crook from the state Duma. If we assume for a second that this is true, it really gets creepy. “We will go to heaven, and they will just drop dead,” Putin said when asked to explain what the phrase "we don’t need a world without Russia" had meant.

This is exactly what Dugin calls the "hermeneutics of the world’s end," only couched in the dialect of the backstreets, which the dictator speaks fluently. It sometimes seems to me that they have already made the "final decision." They have not only canceled Ukraine. They have canceled the world.

Let me summarize this for you: the phrase "we don't need a world without Russia" is harkening to Dugin's call for a new world order, which will eventually result in the world's end. In short, this phrase is the language of the world's end. And now Russia's leaders are using it in their speeches.

Dugin does not believe Armageddon brings heaven to earth in the way Christians normally do. He believes Armageddon will renew the earth, and Russia will lead the world. There just has to be some Russian leadership left.

Now, I'm going to give you the rest of Medvedev's opinion piece. It is really important that you read it. I don't believe anyone in this White House or the Pentagon is paying any attention. I don't think our leaders understand who they're dealing with. I hope somebody starts to pay attention to this, because if this is correct, we are in for a completely different ending than what they intend out of this ongoing war in Ukraine.

Medvedev said that any attempt to take Crimea would result in "the flaming of all of Ukraine and with the forces at Russia's disposal, including nuclear weapons. In accordance with our dock to your knowledge documents, including the fundamentals of nuclear deterrence. All of Ukraine, that will remain under the rule of Kyiv. Will burn."

What Medvedev wrote is a chilling warning. He is quoting Clause 19 of the Russian fundamentals, which says that Russia may use nuclear weapons "in the event of aggression against Russia, with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened."

Let me make this clear: the phrase "we don't need a world without Russia," is now being used by Russian leaders to invoke the use of nuclear weapons. The more we antagonize them to believe that "the very existence of the state is threatened," the more fodder we are feeding to their ideological fire calling for a new world order and nuclear warfare. We HAVE got to stop this war path.