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

The Democratic Party is a death cult, and they are killing off their own future

August 21, 2024
OLIVIER CHASSIGNOLE / Contributor | Getty Images
Glenn Beck

CEO/Founder

The Washington Post covered the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last month with a story full of contempt for the rich. It vilified the corporate bigwigs flocking to town to rub shoulders with Donald Trump.

Twenty years ago, Wall Street and big business may have been in the pocket of the Republicans, but that’s no longer the case. All the large corporations belong to the World Economic Forum and the global public-private partnership that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been pushing.

During the Republican gathering, the Post described oil and gas executives, crypto packers, and powerful Republican politicians engaging in hushed conversations in luxury suites about prospective tax breaks. The piece claimed Donald Trump would only serve America’s wealthiest. It painted a picture of greedy, evil businessmen making deals in dimly lit rooms. After all, as the Post likes to remind us, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

You will own nothing and be happy.

Even if the Post’s portrayal of the Republican convention’s attendees was entirely accurate, I would still prefer rich CEOs over the groups invading the Democratic National Convention in Chicago this week. Unsurprisingly, the Post and others have failed to scrutinize them with the same intensity.

According to the Capitol Research Center, 279 extremist groups were on the streets of Chicago as a part of a coalition to march on the convention Monday. Of that number, 147 have expressed support for or have ties to terrorist groups, such as Hamas, or terrorist attacks, including deadly attacks on Israel in October. The Hamas-allied and Iran-backed Marxist-Leninist group called the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine is also on the ground, openly planning to replicate the violent 1968 Democratic National Convention.

Is anyone on the left going to cover these people?

Abortion, anti-family, anti-life

It's very hard to make Planned Parenthood look good, but these groups are giving them a run for their money. One is calling for Jewish blood, and the other is calling for baby blood. This is a blood death cult.

Planned Parenthood was parked outside the convention with vans, offering free vasectomies and abortions for those who are lucky enough to sign up before all the spots were filled.

Conservative media reacted to the news with shock and disgust. Libs of TikTok called Planned Parenthood’s efforts “demonic.” It is. The pro-life group Students for Life says this proves the far left is “the party of death.” That is true. But free abortions really shouldn’t be all that shocking. After all, pro-abortion groups like Aid Access, run by a team of European doctors, have been mailing abortion pills to women in all 50 states for as low as $100 for years.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate, signed a bill into law last year that removed the requirement for doctors to use all reasonable measures to preserve the life and health of a baby who survives an abortion attempt. He signed a bill enabling doctors to let babies die in the hospital room after they’ve been born.

Moreover, the nominee for the president, Kamala Harris, made what I think is a slip of the tongue when she said: “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduced population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.”

Maybe it was a mistake for the prompter, but maybe she accidentally said the quiet part out loud. I’m sure the prompter said, “Reduce pollution.” But I'm also sure reducing the population is a part of the deal. Bill Gates and other WEF pundits have been promoting population control for decades, a remnant of eugenics that is being ushered into the 21st-century Democratic platform.

This is a death cult.

Return of the DINKs

The left has revealed it’s no longer just the party of killing babies. It's also the party of eliminating the possibility of having them at all. JD Vance received immense backlash from the left, recently calling out the “childless cat ladies” running the Democratic Party. He’s right. Democratic voters are more likely to not have children by choice. They aren’t childless due to medical reasons or the inability to conceive, but by choice, more than their Republican counterparts.

There was a University of Chicago poll that was conducted in 2022 that found 38% of Democrats had no children compared to 26% of those on the right. Like Planned Parenthood’s free abortions, it shouldn’t be surprising. This has been an ongoing movement pushed by the left for decades.

William A. Burly argued in a New York Times op-ed in 1990 that having “fewer children mean[s] a better life and a healthier environment.” He went on to say, “This truth should be taught to our kids," which, unfortunately, he was in the perfect position to do as the principal of an elementary school in New Milford, Connecticut, teaching yesterday’s Millennials, who are now reproducing today at staggeringly low levels. It’s no wonder since they were taught that having kids is a death sentence for personal freedom.

Thirty-four years after Burly’s op-ed appeared, Timothy Carney in the Washington Examiner wrote that New Milford has suffered such a decline in birthrate that it closed its community birthing center. Student population at the high school dropped so much that the JV and varsity football teams had to combine.

This is happening all throughout the country.

Why fight the fight when you can just eliminate the children?

In 2023, the term “DINK” resurfaced on TikTok after a long hibernation from the late 1980s. It stands for “dual income, no kids.” DINK videos of child-free couples bragging about the ample time and money they have to travel and eat at nice restaurants surpassed 33 million views last year. Social media’s glamorization of refusing to “reproduce” may push thousands of potential parents, who are grappling with the decision of whether to go “child-free,” over the edge. How different would fertility rates look today if TikTok videos romanticized parenthood instead?

Surely, a political party starving for power and control would realize that it needs a future populace to carry the torch, but it's aborting its own future voters. That party also stands directly alongside globalists who want “freedom thinkers” to have as little power as possible.

But having kids gives you just that.

Having kids makes you a free thinker because it gives you something to live for beyond yourself. It requires you to reflect on the future and the kind of country you want for your kids. It forces you to reflect on what citizenship means and how to teach that to the next generation. It gives you a reason to fight. It gives you the kind of autonomous power that globalist governments do not want citizens to have in any shape or form. Whether it’s financial freedom in owning a home or the intellectual freedom in knowing that my kid is mine, you can’t force me to teach them the dark principles and beliefs of the far left.

Ultimately, the far left knows that the much bigger and tougher battle is indoctrinating the sacred home where parents have complete control over the lessons and the principles that they choose to shape their kids.

So why fight the fight when you can just eliminate the children? You will own nothing and be happy. You will raise no one and be happy — like the DINK couple. You’ll have extra money to spend on gifts and lavish trips around the world, the freedom to stay up late, the freedom to live for “yourself.”

Will Trump hatred win?

But like so much of what the far left believes, the opposite is true.

I don’t know what will convince people of the lies that they’re buying into. The first night of the Democratic National Convention was filled with stunning, provable lies. Democrats are counting on their voters to be stupid, and they’ve laid the groundwork to deceive the rest.

They need you to hate Donald Trump more than you worry about your personal finances. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than their open borders. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than fentanyl and drugs on our streets and our children being killed by illegal aliens. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than exploiting your taxpayer dollars to house illegal immigrants in hotel rooms while veterans are on the streets. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than you notice the people who are strung out on drugs in our cities and suburbs. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than communism or the possibility of nuclear war. They need you to hate Donald Trump more than their cult of death.

When we get into the voting booth, do Americans actually hate Donald Trump more than what’s in their own best interest? Will you buy what they’re selling?

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

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.