Glenn Beck: Stupak -- You can't fire me, I quit!



Glenn Beck's American Revival this Saturday in Phoenix!


Glenn Beck's American Revival is a daylong event where you can find information, inspiration, and the preparation to help turn this country around...


 - Tickets now available!

GLENN: We were just talking about Stupak on the air. He is not going to run for reelection because, you know, he doesn't have a chance of winning. You can't have such a staunch, "I'm going to be the guy and I will not compromise my values on abortion" and then, "Oh, well, he promised me that it would... no, he's..." I mean, come on.

PAT: And you know full well an executive order, when everybody in this country who knows anything about the process knows that an executive order does not trump law.

GLENN: Okay. So Stu said there's no way this guy actually believed these things because here's the party platform of the DNC.

STU: The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe versus Wade in a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion regardless of ability to pay. So I mean, that's public funding. I mean, they are saying they are going to get it either way. And we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Even weakening it is against their platform. And they are saying I mean, that is pretty clear language there of the government will help you pay.

GLENN: We could go to the RNC platform and I could find things that vehemently disagree with somebody like Ron Paul, okay?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Ron Paul would tell you it's better to be in the system and infect the system or affect the system than it is third party.

STU: Right. I just feel like when you're at a point like it's one thing, there's a lot of policies that I agree with that I vehemently disagree with but when you are talking about like an abortion is murder type belief, that is a core belief if you're murdering children.

GLENN: Right. But if you agreed with, if you agreed with their stance on, hey, let's not, you know, let's not question anybody on an airplane, you know, and all the other things the Democrats stand for, you know, let's get rid of all nuclear weapons, wouldn't it be better, if that was your thing, wouldn't it be better to say, you know what, I'm going to get in there and I'm going to be a force of change inside that party.

STU: I'm sure this would be his argument but the bottom line is his actions don't hold that out. I mean, you know, he folded on this belief. This belief was not a core belief and I think that the leading indication of that is that he joined this party in the first place. That's just an indication. It's not I think it's not impossible to say, you know what, I don't want kids to cross state lines to get abortions, or whatever, one of these sort of beliefs. And you want to maybe restrict it a little bit in certain areas. But when it's the it's a core to your being that abortion is murder and you're killing babies, I can't see how you'd be part of that party.

PAT: And one of the most amazing things about this is that Bart Stupak went in one week, seven days. The weekend he was still holding out and they were getting he was getting all kinds of pressure and he said his family was getting threats from the left. They couldn't answer the phone, they were being harassed, it was awful for him. Remember that? It was, his life was a living hell because of the left, because of his stand on abortion.

STU: Right.

PAT: And then he made the statement that you can't it's gotten to the point and it's a sad state of affairs when it's gotten to the point where you cannot be pro life in the Democratic Party. He said I'm not going to change parties but that's the fact. You can't be pro life in this party anymore.

GLENN: Well, there's your sign. There's your sign.

PAT: He went from that to caving.

GLENN: When he says I'm not going to change parties, that's your sign.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah?

GLENN: Because once you realize you cannot make a difference in that party and that party is dead set against, is saying we're for more killing the babies, you've got to get out of there.

PAT: And that's a make or break issue for you? Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Not just a for instance, not a, "Hey, I really believe in border security." I'm trying to think of something that's not a moral issue. But this one, this one's a God issue.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We're talking murder. We're talking murder. If you believe it like Bart Stupak says he believes it, you can't I mean, let's say this. Let's say this. If you were part of a party that said, you know what, all tea partygoers are dangerous, we have to round them up and kill their children, you

STU: Right.

GLENN: I mean, you can say I agree with them on a whole bunch of other things.

STU: But I'm not joining that party.

GLENN: Unless I thought, okay, I'm going to go in and I'm going to try to change that because I am staunchly against that, so I'm going to try to infect that system and stop it from the inside. But once you realize they're not going to stop doing that, you've got to get out of there. For your soul sake.

STU: Right. And I mean, like, look. Like Ben Steyn is an example. Like he is an economist who we agree with on a lot of stuff. But he said on the air with us that he would like to see the, you know, the taxes for rich people be hiked a little bit. He thinks they are not quite enough. Now, I completely disagree with him, but it's a policy difference and he's a Republican and he can certainly exist as a Republican.

GLENN: It's not a sole issue.

STU: It's not a soul I shall.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: When you talk about, he says over and over again protecting the life of the unborn. Think of the statement. That is a core belief of keeping a child alive.

GLENN: It's not even waterboarding. It's not even waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture and if you believe that waterboarding is torture and we shouldn't be doing it, well, then what do you you know, what

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But it's not even, it's not even that. It's not even that. This is murder. Cold blooded killing.

STU: Like Ron Paul is completely opposed to wars but it's not in the Republican platform to go to war. You know what I mean? They believe in certain wars, they don't believe in others. And they go to

GLENN: It's a misinterpretation of him. He does believe in going to war. But declare the war.

STU: I don't think I got that from him.

PAT: Only when we, I think pretty much when we've been directly attacked, if directly attacked, get a declaration from congress, then go to war.

GLENN: Yeah, his version of war is almost the same. He will agree to use the nukes when Obama does.

PAT: Yeah. And his position would be, his position would be if we just get out of the Middle East, we wouldn't ever have to.

GLENN: And that's not

PAT: That's just not reasonable.

STU: He vehemently disagrees with the Republicans' view on foreign policy but it's not like this is it's like in the Republican Party their platform was we're going to go to war and kill as many people as possible. I mean, we want everyone to have the right to bomb any country for no reason. I mean, that's if you believe abortion is murder, that's essentially the policy.

GLENN: Right. And you couldn't be a part of that.

STU: No.

GLENN: So gee, we're going to miss you, Stupak, we really, really are. Here's our number, 888 727 BECK, 888 727 BECK.

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.