Glenn Beck: Your stimulus $$ hard at work...


Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

According to the Washington Post, John Murtha airport, $150 million for the airport. Also, it's got to repave the new backup runway for $800,000. They are getting that from the stimulus package. It's fantastic. The Washington Post says inside the terminal on a recent weekday, four passengers lined up to board a flight, outnumbered by seven security staff members and supervisors, all suited up in gloves and uniforms to screen six pieces of luggage. For three hours that day no commercial or private planes took off or landed. Three commercial flights leave the airport on weekdays. Where are they all headed? Washington, D.C. Gleaming facilities. King of the pork, John Murtha. Consistently directs more federal money to his district than a ny other congressman. $192 million of the 2008 budget. $192 million. That's only $92 million more in this budget than Obama swears he's going to find to cut in this budget today. That's fantastic.

See, here's the problem. This is our kind of ‑‑ this is the kind of spending that we have. How is this exactly, how is this going to help us? How is this going to help us? It creates jobs. We've just built an airport that nobody is using. Nobody is using. You've hired seven people to stand there during the day. Well, who's going to pay for that? How does that move our country ahead? How is it going to continue to grow? How is this going to expand our economy? Sure, we have an airport. Congratulations. Fantastic. But nobody's using it. We have a railway system. They are now expanding Amtrak because Amtrak is going to get more money so now they have to have Amtrak go to places where nobody wants to go. These are the photos of this? Those are sweet photos, huh, Stu? Those are sweet photos.

STU: That is pretty hot.

GLENN: This is a nice ‑‑ woof.

STU: I was just looking at how fantastic some of the things that Murtha's brought to the airport such as the $8 million radar system for detecting weather problems more than 100 miles away, the system on the southern edge of the property. Murtha had said the system would create at least a dozen air‑traffic control jobs but the state air National Guard which was supposed to staff it said personnel reductions have left the radar unmanned.

GLENN: I'm sorry. What? Hmmm?

STU: Well, there might not be anybody using it. There's also the $17.8 million earmark in 2006 from the defense department that replaced the airport's 7,000‑foot asphalt runway with a reinforced concrete bed capable of handling larger civilian and military jets, but it's not being employed for that purpose.

GLENN: But wait. We created some jobs by putting this runway in, didn't we?

STU: There had to be someone making the runway that they are not using, yes. They had to do that, and they also had to build the radar equipment that they are not using. That was all jobs.

GLENN: But I mean, there could, it could ‑‑ we could use that runway.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Let's say there's a big tax day tea party happening in the district, okay?

STU: Uh‑huh, uh‑huh, a lot of extremists around.

GLENN: A lot of extremists are around and you need to have, like, big C‑130 transport planes land somewhere just to get all the eavesdropping equipment there.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Do you have a runway that could land there and have those big C‑130, you know, like a big Galaxy. Could you land one of those there?

STU: Right, yeah. Now you could.

GLENN: You could now.

STU: You could.

GLENN: So if there is a tea party of extremists, there's a place to land it.

STU: Right.

GLENN: The Galaxy.

STU: Right.

GLENN: If the government was out of control.

STU: Like, for example, let's say you didn't have a place ‑‑ let's say you landed the giant jets.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: And you let all of the people out that were going to find the extremists that were doing the tea party.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: But then you're like, how do we get them from here to the actual tea party because it's not happening on the airport. So you need, let's say for example a $14 million helicopter hangar and training unit to be able to kind of train the guys and then they could ‑‑ well, the training ‑‑

GLENN: Training, training... training for what?

STU: Well, the training thing is a $6.5 million three‑story National Guard and reserve training center, resembles a rustic ski lodge and it's right on Airport Road there. So you'd be able to train them.

GLENN: So okay, okay, okay, so I got it. Is this in a mountainous region, Stu? There's no real ‑‑

STU: I'm not sure, Glenn. We'd have to look at the radar.

GLENN: But we can't because the radar is not up and running because nobody's manning the radar, right? So we can't? Okay, all right. So look, here's the thing. So let's just say that there are extremists who are going to a tax day tea party and the government is so out of control, they decide to fill up a Galaxy with all kinds of spy equipment.

STU: I don't know why you are saying they are out of control. I don't ‑‑ we have extremists.

GLENN: Objection, you are right. So they are just doing the right thing and they're targeting these people. It's almost like they're profiling these people and they decide we're going to watch them and, you know, keep an eye on them. So we've got the runway now to land the galaxy.

STU: Right. And we have the radar to make sure we know if the weather's going to be good in the area.

GLENN: And if they happen to be rallying at ‑‑ you were saying what?

STU: Well, you could either ‑‑ I mean, you have that, you know, the unmanned $17.8 million ‑‑ or excuse me, the unmanned $8 million radar there that you could sense if the weather's coming from $100 miles an hour or you could just go to weather.yahoo.com. Either one of those two things.

GLENN: Let's just say we have a $8 million radar. We have it.

STU: We'd have to hire people.

GLENN: But that's good for the economy because we're putting people to work.

STU: Right, putting people to work, creating jobs.

GLENN: We've got the job creation thing going on, we've got the radar. Murtha's on the phone. He's like, hey, land at that reinforced runway, it's good. We can try it out.

STU: Not just regular concrete anymore.

GLENN: Right. And if the radar says that the tea party is taking place at a ski lodge, we can train the National Guard to infiltrate the ski lodge.

STU: Right. Right on the premises you can do that. And then you could use the helicopter hangar to fly them to the ski lodge.

GLENN: Well, you couldn't use the hangar to do that.

STU: Use the helicopters that are inside the hanger.

GLENN: So there are helicopters inside the ‑‑

STU: Well, I don't have that confirmed but I'm going to go ahead ‑‑ it could be an unmanned helicopter hangar, I will admit that.

GLENN: So in other words, there may not be helicopters?

STU: But you know what creates jobs, building helicopters.

GLENN: Helicopters. Helicopters. And then when we need to fly the helicopters after we've trained them to take over a ski lodge, wouldn't it ‑‑ Stu, wouldn't the ski lodge thing, wouldn't that actually be a job not for the National Guard but for the FBI?

STU: That seems unclear to me but if you'd like me to check it out, I can hire some researchers which creates jobs.

GLENN: What will we do with the researchers after we finish with this project?

STU: Well, this would be no, of course no end. We would ‑‑

GLENN: But I would only need them for this.

STU: You can't foresee things like that. How do we know the research is going to end? How do we know? Like, for example, when you say you are going to create, say, I don't know, three million green jobs, okay? And then you ‑‑ and you adjust the number multiple times and no one notices, but let's just say you run about 3 million green jobs ‑‑

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Did you see the report that came out last week that said creating green jobs is a fallacy because they have been doing it in Europe and it actually ‑‑ no, it actually ‑‑

STU: No, obviously if you don't talk, they are not going to know that. If you say it, people will know it. And if you don't say it, people won't know it.

GLENN: It's just us and the nut jobs that are planning things that ‑‑

STU: Oh, the extremists? Oh, they already believe things anyway.

GLENN: Yeah, they are going to ski lodges right now. So you see that? It actually eliminates more jobs than it creates.

STU: Look, there are rightwing extremists who believe such things.

GLENN: Right.

STU: And there are people who look at numbers and crunch, they see facts and they insert them into arguments and all these crazy things that extremists do, okay?

GLENN: Right, right.

STU: But you need to learn how to ‑‑ this is the problem with you is you don't understand how to create jobs. For example, we know the auto industry is in trouble.

GLENN: We do.

STU: There's been a lot of troubles with the auto industry.

GLENN: Mainly it's the job, the problem is that they have ‑‑ they got into bed with the unions and the unions wanted these big, you know, legacy programs and then the government also got into bed and they told them how to make cars.

STU: I kind of tuned out there. I didn't understand what you were saying. But I can tell you this, that, see, John Murtha airport, they are not only helping create jobs, they are helping the auto industry.

GLENN: How do you know that?

STU: For example, in 2007 when the airport authority fired a long‑time manager after he used FAA funds to buy a Chevrolet Tahoe to use around the airport. You know what I mean? What are you going to do? He didn't buy a foreign car. He bought a Chevy.

GLENN: But he was just using it there at the airplane.

STU: Well, you know, hey, it was a Tahoe. You know what I mean? It's nice. What if you need to climb a mountain at the airport.

GLENN: You are going to a ski lodge.

STU: Exactly. They are completely ‑‑ by the way, the same day over some members' objections, the authority hired MTT Aviation Services. The company is a subsidiary of Mountaintop Technology, a defense contractor that had received at least $23 million in earmarks from Murtha and is run by his close friend.

GLENN: Please.

STU: But see, that's a job.

GLENN: Can I tell you something?

STU: Creating a friend as a job ‑‑

GLENN: Why do you get on, a guy who is making sure that we have the technology, the runway, the practice ski chalet place, the empty, you know, helicopter hangers, why do you have to take him down with these accusations that, you know, his friend is corrupt?

STU: Well, I didn't say his friend was corrupt. I just said that he gave $23 million to his friend.

GLENN: Oh, okay. I thought there was an accusation there.

STU: No.

GLENN: But you are not accusing him of any ‑‑

STU: Oh, no, no. See, what happened with that $23 million that he gave his friend, what happened was jobs were created. And were they green? We don't know. But ‑‑

GLENN: I bet they were.

STU: I bet they were.

GLENN: I bet they were.

STU: I bet it was green.

GLENN: I bet they were for our national interest.

STU: I bet there was green changing hands and I bet it was for our national interests. Green jobs, Glenn.

GLENN: Green. It's all about the green. That's all it is. And I think that we ‑‑ you know what? I said happy anniversary to the two‑year anniversary of the statement that the war is lost for Harry Reid. Congratulations. That's today. And congratulations to John Murtha on this airport. Job well done. You are a true and faithful servant. You really are. And, you know, some will say that, you know, when you come home, your constituents would like to kick your head in, but I don't think so. I think those people just don't see the long‑term advantages of having a ski chalet.

STU: Having his career's head kicked in. Yeah, they had the philosophy of let the guy keep winning, which is last time, even though it was close.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: They are getting close to what a rational person would do in his district. They are just not going there yet.

GLENN: Yeah. No, there probably never will be.

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:


Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:


Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.