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

Here are the TOP 5 reasons for sending aid to Ukraine—and why they're wrong

March 02, 2023
Handout / Handout | Getty Images
Katarina Bradford

Glenn's audience has spoken loud and clear: they do NOT want the U.S. to send further aid to Ukraine and to engage in a bigger worldwide conflict. However, if history indicates anything, that is EXACTLY where we are heading.

If you tuned into last night's Glenn TV special, you heard Glenn give both pro AND con arguments for giving ongoing aid to Ukraine. Here are the top 5 reasons why people believe the U.S. should continue supporting Ukraine—and why they're wrong. Get the FULL research and arguments that went into the episode HERE.

1.   “Defense of Democracy”

What they say: This is the mantra touted by Biden himself and all across the mainstream media. This idea is that Democracy is the most humane form of government, and any system that’s different leads to the oppression of their people. Therefore, if the U.S. truly believes in democracy, the U.S. will defend it when it is under attack abroad.

Why they're wrong: Defending democracy is NOT our job. Defending the U.S. is. Isn't it ironic that the same people accusing the Right of being "war hawks" and the "world's police" during the U.S. presence in Iraq and Afghanistan are the same ones calling for a perpetual presence in ANOTHER part of the world, "as long as it takes"? Not only should we not be the world's democracy police, but it would also be financially irresponsible to do so. Inflation is at an all-time high and the U.S. oil reserves and military arsenal are being depleted. What if we get pulled into a conflict that WE don't have the resources for? It's time to take care of our home front and have Europe step up to the plate in funding THEIR regional crisis.

2.        “Rules based order”

What they say: You’ve probably heard the establishment use this phrase quite often. George H. W. Bush originally called this idea the “New World Order,” but that sounded a bit too scary so they changed it. The idea is that the international community collectively holds rules that everyone is expected to follow. Proponents of sending aid to Ukraine argue that unless the West holds Russia accountable for violating the "rule-based order," the order will collapse—because it would have no teeth.

Why they're wrong: Though a nice idea, an ideal "rule-based order" is untenable. Why? A country's national interests often don't "jive," with the rest of the world—and it's hard to tell a country to stop pursuing its own interests. For example, what if 90 percent of one country's GDP comes from fossil fuels, but the “rules-based order” calls for massive cuts to DIRTY energy? Sound familiar?

Here’s another "hypothetical" situation. What if Country A doesn’t want Country B to join a hostile alliance—let’s just say NATO—but the hostile alliance continues to expand towards Country A. Would it then be in their best interest to intervene to stop Country B? It might be in their interest, but NOT in line with the “rules-based order." Doesn't that also sound familiar?

Bottom line: This idea of maintaining a "rules-based order" harkens back to the downfalls of the U.S.'s role as the world's democracy police. It's both untenable and irresponsible foreign policy.

3.        Russia won’t stop with Ukraine

What they say: There are reports that Moldova is now fearing they could be next on Russia’s invasion list. Putin has stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe in history. What if he wants to reclaim ALL of the territory they once had? Could Poland be next? Romania? Hungary? Why would Putin stop at JUST Ukraine if he’s willing to go this far? The argument would be that Russia must be stopped NOW. If Russia is stopped now, then we save ourselves from entering a larger war later.

Why they're wrong: This is the same "democracy police" argument reiterated over and over again justifying the U.S.'s involvement in war. President Lyndon Johnson said he wasn't going to send "American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." That view didn't last very long. Within months, the U.S. troops were deployed for what turned into an eight-year war to stop the spread of Soviet sovereignty. Have the Democrats forgotten that they were against the 20-year-long U.S. presence in Afghanistan? We are walking into the same cycle that has plagued the U.S. government for the past 100 years: we become the world's "democracy police" at our own expense.

4.        Russia won’t go nuclear

What they say: Mutually Assured Destruction didn’t just STOP becoming a thing. The threat is still there. This war will be fought conventionally for as long as it takes. As long as the Russian regime and homeland are not directly at risk, the nuclear threat is merely just that… a threat.

Why they're wrong: Glenn just published an article detailing the research into one of the most influential individuals in Russia, the political philosopher Alexander Dugin. Dugin's political philosophy calls for the "cleansing" of the world by destroying it. His growing following of Eurasian nationalists call for the dominance of the "Rus" people, rising from the chaos of mass destruction to become the world's new leaders. He is one of Putin's closest advisors, and now, Putin has been using his language when invoking the "nuclear option" in response to ongoing Western aid to Ukraine. Former Russian President Medvedev has also used Dugin's language to justify the use of potential nuclear warfare.

Bottom line: The most powerful people in Russia's government are being influenced by a political philosopher who wants the destruction of the world as a vessel to bring about Russian nationalist dominance. He doesn't shy away from nuclear warfare—he would welcome it as a "cleanse" of the human race. Mutually Assured Destruction isn't as big of a deterrent to the Russian government as we would like to think.

5.        A larger global war is not a threat

What they say: Russia can barely handle Ukraine. They definitely can’t afford a fight on multiple fronts.

Why they're wrong: Even if it's true that Russia can't handle a global war on its own, they are not alone. Russia is quickly building a new anti-Western coalition, a new 21st Century Warsaw Pact, with the biggest enemies of the West: Iran, China, and North Korea. Iran has already become a weapons partner with Russia, sending Russia military drones and opening a military manufacturing plant IN Russia. Do we want to go to war with Russia, who has a military alliance with a sworn enemy of the U.S. with near weapons-grade uranium enrichment?

Furthermore, U.S. intelligence reports say that China is considering supplying military aid to Russia, if they haven't already. This comes amid the visit of Alexander Lukashenko, the dictator of Russia-ally Belarus, a border nation with Ukraine, meeting President Xi in China to solidify military ties. Intelligence reports have also found that Russia has been illegally importing weapons from North Korea against international sanctions.

Is Russia really "alone?"

Bottom line: Even if Russia couldn't handle a world war on its own, an alliance between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea certainly could. Do we want to take that risk?

Russell Vought’s secret plan to finally shrink Washington

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s OMB chief built the plan for this moment: Starve pet programs, force reauthorization, and actually shrink Washington.

The government is shut down again, and the usual panic is back. I even had someone call my house this week to ask if it was safe to fly today. The person was half-joking, half-serious, wondering if planes would “fall out of the sky.”

For the record, the sky isn’t falling — at least not literally. But the chaos in Washington does feel like it. Once again, we’re watching the same old script: a shutdown engineered not by fiscal restraint but by political brinkmanship. And this time, the Democrats are driving the bus.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills.

Democrats, among other things, are demanding that health care be extended to illegal immigrants. Democratic leadership caved to its radical base, which would rather shut down the government for such left-wing campaign points than compromise. Republicans — shockingly — said no. They refused to rubber-stamp more spending for illegal immigration. For once, they stood their ground.

But if you’ve watched Washington long enough, you know how this story usually ends: a shutdown followed by a deal that spends even more money than before — a continuing resolution kicking the can down the road. Everyone pretends to “win,” but taxpayers always lose.

The Vought effect

This time might be different. Republicans actually hold some cards. The public may blame Democrats — not the media, but the people who feel this in their wallets. Americans don’t like shutdowns, but they like runaway spending and chaos even less.

That’s why you’re hearing so much about Russell Vought, the director of the United States Office of Management and Budget and Donald Trump’s quiet architect of a strategy to use moments like this to shrink the federal bureaucracy. Vought spent four years building a plan for exactly this scenario: firing nonessential workers and forcing reauthorization of pet programs. Trump talks about draining the swamp. Vought draws up the blueprints.

The Democrats and media are threatened by Vought because he is patient, calculated, and understands how to leverage the moment to reverse decades of government bloat. If programs aren’t mandated, cut them. Make Congress fight to bring them back. That’s how you actually drain the swamp.

Predictable meltdowns

Predictably, Democrats are melting down. They’ve shifted their arguments so many times it’s dizzying. Last time, they claimed a shutdown would lead to mass firings. Now, they insist Republicans are firing everyone anyway. It’s the same playbook: Move the goalposts, reframe the narrative, accuse your opponents of cruelty.

We’ve seen this before. Remember the infamous "You lie!” moment in 2009? President Barack Obama promised during his State of the Union that Obamacare wouldn’t cover illegal immigrants. Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted, “You lie!” and was condemned for breaching decorum.

Several years later, Hillary Clinton’s campaign platform openly promised health care for illegal immigrants. What was once called a “lie” became official policy. And today, Democrats are shutting down the government because they can’t get even more of it.

This is progressivism in action: Deny it, inch toward it, then demand it as a moral imperative. Anyone who resists becomes the villain.

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Stand firm

This shutdown isn’t just about spending. It’s about whether we’ll keep letting progressives rewrite the rules one crisis at a time. Trump’s plan — to cut what isn’t mandated, force programs into reauthorization, and fight the battle in the courts — is the first real counterpunch to decades of this manipulation.

It’s time to stop pretending. This isn’t about compassion. It’s about control. Progressives know once they normalize government benefits for illegal immigrants, they never roll back. They know Americans forget how it started.

This shutdown may be inconvenient. But it’s also an opportunity — to stop funding our own destruction, to reset the table, and to remind Congress who actually pays the bills. If we don’t take it, we’ll be right back here again, only deeper in debt, with fewer freedoms left to defend.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Britain says “no work without ID”—a chilling preview for America

OLI SCARFF / Contributor | Getty Images

From banking to health care, digital IDs touch every aspect of citizens’ lives, giving the government unprecedented control over everyday actions.

On Friday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer stood at the podium at the Global Progressive Action Conference in London and made an announcement that should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves liberty. By the end of this Parliament, he promised, every worker in the U.K. will be required to hold a “free-of-charge” digital ID. Without it, Britons will not be able to work.

No digital ID, no job.

The government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Starmer framed this as a commonsense response to poverty, climate change, and illegal immigration. He claimed Britain cannot solve these problems without “looking upstream” and tackling root causes. But behind the rhetoric lies a policy that shifts power away from individuals and places it squarely in the hands of government.

Solving the problem they created

This is progressivism in action. Leaders open their borders, invite in mass illegal immigration, and refuse to enforce their own laws. Then, when public frustration boils over, they unveil a prepackaged “solution” — in this case, digital identity — that entrenches government control.

Britain isn’t the first to embrace this system. Switzerland recently approved a digital ID system. Australia already has one. The World Economic Forum has openly pitched digital IDs as the key to accessing everything from health care to bank accounts to travel. And once the infrastructure is in place, digital currency will follow soon after, giving governments the power to track every purchase, approve or block transactions, and dictate where and how you spend your money.

All of your data — your medical history, insurance, banking, food purchases, travel, social media engagement, tax information — would be funneled into a centralized database under government oversight.

The fiction of enforcement

Starmer says this is about cracking down on illegal work. The BBC even pressed him on the point, asking why a mandatory digital ID would stop human traffickers and rogue employers who already ignore national insurance cards. He had no answer.

Bad actors will still break the law. Bosses who pay sweatshop wages under the table will not suddenly check digital IDs. Criminals will not line up to comply. This isn’t about stopping illegal immigration. If it were, the U.K. would simply enforce existing laws, close the loopholes, and deport those working illegally.

Instead, the government is introducing a system that punishes law-abiding citizens by tying their right to work to a government-issued pass.

Control masked as compassion

This is part of an old playbook. Politicians claim their hands are tied and promise that only sweeping new powers will solve the crisis. They selectively enforce laws to maintain the problem, then use the problem to justify expanding control.

If Britain truly wanted to curb illegal immigration, it could. It is an island. The Channel Tunnel has clear entry points. Enforcement is not impossible. But a digital ID allows for something far more valuable to bureaucrats than border security: total oversight of their own citizens.

The American warning

Think digital ID can’t happen here? Think again. The same arguments are already echoing in Washington, D.C. Illegal immigration is out of control. Progressives know voters are angry. When the digital ID pitch arrives, it will be wrapped in patriotic language about fairness, security, and compassion.

But the goal isn’t compassion. It’s control of your movement, your money, your speech, your future.

We don’t need digital IDs to enforce immigration law. We need leaders with the courage to enforce existing law. Until then, digital ID schemes will keep spreading, sold as a cure for the very problems they helped create.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The West is dying—Will we let enemies write our ending?

Harvey Meston / Staff | Getty Images

The blood of martyrs, prophets, poets, and soldiers built our civilization. Their sacrifice demands courage in the present to preserve it.

Lamentations asks, “Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?”

That question has been weighing on me heavily. Not just as a broadcaster, but as a citizen, a father, a husband, a believer. It is a question that every person who cares about this nation, this culture, and this civilization must confront: Is all of this worth saving?

We have squandered this inheritance. We forgot who we were — and our enemies are eager to write our ending.

Western civilization — a project born in Judea, refined in Athens, tested in Rome, reawakened in Wittenberg, and baptized again on the shores of Plymouth Rock — is a gift. We didn’t earn it. We didn’t purchase it. We were handed it. And now, we must ask ourselves: Do we even want it?

Across Europe, streets are restless. Not merely with protests, but with ancient, festering hatred — the kind that once marched under swastikas and fueled ovens. Today, it marches under banners of peace while chanting calls for genocide. Violence and division crack societies open. Here in America, it’s left against right, flesh against spirit, neighbor against neighbor.

Truth struggles to find a home. Even the church is slumbering — or worse, collaborating.

Our society tells us that everything must be reset: tradition, marriage, gender, faith, even love. The only sin left is believing in absolute truth. Screens replace Scripture. Entertainment replaces education. Pleasure replaces purpose. Our children are confused, medicated, addicted, fatherless, suicidal. Universities mock virtue. Congress is indifferent. Media programs rather than informs. Schools recondition rather than educate.

Is this worth saving? If not, we should stop fighting and throw up our hands. But if it is, then we must act — and we must act now.

The West: An idea worth saving

What is the West? It’s not a location, race, flag, or a particular constitution. The West is an idea — an idea that man is made in the image of God, that liberty comes from responsibility, not government; that truth exists; that evil exists; and that courage is required every day. The West teaches that education, reason, and revelation walk hand in hand. Beauty matters. Kindness matters. Empathy matters. Sacrifice is holy. Justice is blind. Mercy is near.

We have squandered this inheritance. We forgot who we were — and our enemies are eager to write our ending.

If not now, when? If not us, who? If this is worth saving, we must know why. Western civilization is worth dying for, worth living for, worth defending. It was built on the blood of martyrs, prophets, poets, pilgrims, moms, dads, and soldiers. They did not die for markets, pronouns, surveillance, or currency. They died for something higher, something bigger.

MATTHIEU RONDEL/AFP via Getty Images | Getty Images

Yet hope remains. Resurrection is real — not only in the tomb outside Jerusalem, but in the bones of any individual or group that returns to truth, honor, and God. It is never too late to return to family, community, accountability, and responsibility.

Pick up your torch

We were chosen for this time. We were made for a moment like this. The events unfolding in Europe and South Korea, the unrest and moral collapse, will all come down to us. Somewhere inside, we know we were called to carry this fire.

We are not called to win. We are called to stand. To hold the torch. To ask ourselves, every day: Is it worth standing? Is it worth saving?

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. Pick up your torch. If you choose to carry it, buckle up. The work is only beginning.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Stop coasting: How self-education can save America’s future

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Coasting through life is no longer an option. Charlie Kirk’s pursuit of knowledge challenges all of us to learn, act, and grow every day.

Last year, my wife and I made a commitment: to stop coasting, to learn something new every day, and to grow — not just spiritually, but intellectually. Charlie Kirk’s tragic death crystallized that resolve. It forced a hard look in the mirror, revealing how much I had coasted in both my spiritual and educational life. Coasting implies going downhill. You can’t coast uphill.

Last night, my wife and I re-engaged. We enrolled in Hillsdale College’s free online courses, inspired by the fact that Charlie had done the same. He had quietly completed around 30 courses before I even knew, mastering the classics, civics, and the foundations of liberty. Watching his relentless pursuit of knowledge reminded me that growth never stops, no matter your age.

The path forward must be reclaiming education, agency, and the power to shape our minds and futures.

This lesson is particularly urgent for two groups: young adults stepping into the world and those who may have settled into complacency. Learning is life. Stop learning, and you start dying. To young adults, especially, the college promise has become a trap. Twelve years of K-12 education now leave graduates unprepared for life. Only 35% of seniors are proficient in reading, and just 22% in math. They are asked to bet $100,000 or more for four years of college that will often leave them underemployed and deeply indebted.

Degrees in many “new” fields now carry negative returns. Parents who have already sacrificed for public education find themselves on the hook again, paying for a system that often fails to deliver.

This is one of the reasons why Charlie often described college as a “scam.” Debt accumulates, wages are not what students were promised, doors remain closed, and many are tempted to throw more time and money after a system that won’t yield results. Graduate school, in many cases, compounds the problem. The education system has become a factory of despair, teaching cynicism rather than knowledge and virtue.

Reclaiming educational agency

Yet the solution is not radical revolt against education — it is empowerment to reclaim agency over one’s education. Independent learning, self-guided study, and disciplined curiosity are the modern “Napster moment.” Just as Napster broke the old record industry by digitizing music, the internet has placed knowledge directly in the hands of the individual. Artists like Taylor Swift now thrive outside traditional gatekeepers. Likewise, students and lifelong learners can reclaim intellectual freedom outside of the ivory towers.

Each individual possesses the ability to think, create, and act. This is the power God grants to every human being. Knowledge, faith, and personal responsibility are inseparable. Learning is not a commodity to buy with tuition; it is a birthright to claim with effort.

David Butow / Contributor | Getty Images

Charlie Kirk’s life reminds us that self-education is an act of defiance and empowerment. In his pursuit of knowledge, in his engagement with civics and philosophy, he exemplified the principle that liberty depends on informed, capable citizens. We honor him best by taking up that mantle — by learning relentlessly, thinking critically, and refusing to surrender our minds to a system that profits from ignorance.

The path forward must be reclaiming education, agency, and the power to shape our minds and futures. Every day, seek to grow, create, and act. Charlie showed the way. It is now our responsibility to follow.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.