RADIOOctober 21, 2022

SHOCKING poll shows voters agree on THIS danger to America

It seems like there continues to be very little ideological overlap between Republicans and Democrats. Yet, a recent New York Times poll found that midterm voters DO agree on one thing. The poll found that 85 percent of participants agree on one, specific danger to American democracy. In this clip, Glenn and Stu reveal that ‘danger,’ and they discuss some of the the poll's other, shocking results…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me talk to you a little bit about, let me tell you about the voting data. There is some new actual data, the turnout is pretty big for early voting.

STU: Incredible.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: I would say.

GLENN: Incredible. Because we're comparing this now to a presidential election. Democrats, 57 percent in California, in 2020, 57 percent at this point was the balance of the, that we're coming in.

STU: The ballots that were coming in from registered democrats.

GLENN: 22 percent from registered Republicans. This time, 49 percent are from democrats and 27 percent are from Republicans. This doesn't mean anything other than, I mean, I think that Republicans are less likely to vote early, usually.

STU: Oh yes. Absolutely. We've had candidates encouraging them not to. More democrats are always encouraged to get out there, get that vote in early.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: There's advantages to campaigns for doing this. Not only do you get the vote locked in you also don't have to spend resources getting that person out on that day. It's a massive advantage to get your people to vote early.

GLENN: Florida 57 democrat at this time in 2020. Today it is 42 percent. That's down 9 percentage points. The last time, for Republicans, Florida, 29 percent, this time 39 percent. So the spread is what interests me. You're a guy who loves stats. Does that spread mean anything?

STU: It means something but it's important to not put too much into it. Early voting data has has been known to be misleading when you're trying to draw grand conclusions from it.

GLENN: I'm only drawing from that we are more than that are, we are more motivated to go out and vote than they are. And if that continues all the way through, that a really good sign.

STU: That would be a great sign.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Again, it's just early. I think you can take this an indication that something might be happening it's a point of data.

GLENN: There's another poll from the New York Times, New York Times poll, asked its respondents to select one of the two following statements that is aligning closest to your view even if they don't match exactly. American democracy is currently under threat. American democracy is not currently under threat. 71 percent say we are under threat, 21 percent say no. The poll then took the 71 percent who thought it was under threat and said where is the threat coming from? Republicans major threat, 28 percent minor threat, 39, not a threat, 29. So the Republicans are a threat to the republic. Major threat 28, minor threat 39. Democrats are a real threat. Major threat, 33, minor threat 30, not a threat, 34 percent. Not a threat for democrat oar or for Republicans was 29.

STU: So basically about equal.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Both sides are saying the other are threats.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Which shouldn't surprise you.

GLENN: No.

STU: But you need to read into this a little further.

GLENN: Save that because I want to give you the rest. Donald Trump, major threat 45 percent, minor threat 22, not a threat 31. Joe Biden, major threat 38, minor threat 22, not a threat 37. So not that far off of Donald Trump. Isn't that interesting? Mainstream media, major threat, 59 percent, minor threat 25, not a threat 15 percent. That's incredible.

STU: Yeah, this is a reallying narrative that's developed over the past month or two which is the democrats believed, looking at polling like this, that so many people thought democracy was in trouble. That if they ran on January 6, people would run to them. There's not a, it's not a insane viewpoint from their view.

GLENN: No.

STU: We saw what happened on January 6, people didn't like it, they think democracy's in trouble, let's build that up and have these hearings in prime time, let's launch the hearings when we have nothing, let's make everything about Donald Trump. It's understandable.

GLENN: I think 2008 that would have been absolutely the thing to do and would have won. But because we had gone through a year of setting cities on fire with nothing

STU: In 2008?

GLENN: In 2008, if it would have happened, if somebody had stormed the cam Tolkien.

STU: 2008.

GLENN: People would have paid attention and went whoa. Because we had cities on fire and the government did nothing we weren't as shocked when people stormed the capitol. We all saw it and went this is horrible.

STU: That's an interesting point.

GLENN: It lowered and gave the equivocation of you didn't do anything here, you're doing something here, and these people have a reason to be pissed. It just gave all new wrinkled in the argument that hadn't been there 10, 15 years before.

STU: Yeah. The two things the democrats didn't understand when they saw this polling early on was there is real concern for quote unquote democracy in our country, there are much bigger concerns. People are much more concerned about the economy and inflation, and crime and the border, and many other things than democracy as a voting ish issue. Number two, they didn't realize that half the people saying they thought democracy under threat believed the democrats were the threat. They were the ones who were the problem here. It wasn't that everyone thought democracy was under threat because of January 6 or because of Donald Trump, many of them believe there were problems with the election. Many of them see what is going on when Republicans are being investigated by the IRS, for example. All of the corruption and massive problems that have gone on, even outside of the electoral process just the way the country's run. While it motivates and animates at some level, it's not the top of the mind issue. Also, there's half of the country who see the, let's say the left is doing with the January 6 commission and say you're the ones doing this. You're the ones violating the rules of our democracy. They've really invested a lot of resources in this and it's falling on its face.

GLENN: I find it amazing, mainstream media, major threat, almost 60 percent, minor threat, 23, not a threat 15. 15 percent, that's about I think the number of people that work for the federal government and the mainstream media. I mean, that is amazing.

STU: It's really bad.

GLENN: That's amazing. One more thing.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Also from the New York Times, they ranked major issues by importance. Let's see. Economy was 26, inflation 19.

STU: They split those two but that the same issue.

GLENN: Right.

STU: That's 45 percent saying it's the top issue. That's incredibly high.

GLENN: Here's what also is interesting to me, Trump Republicans and crime are in a three-way tie with climate change. I don't believe this poll. Crime is tied with Trump Republicans and climate change? Crime? You know; you're only going to get climate change and Trump Republicans, you get each side. Or you get double because climate change is really important and Trump Republicans are really important. But crime you get both parties saying crime.

STU: Yeah. I mean, again, I think the way the poll is phrased is top issue; is that right? Not just is it an issue. But is it your top issue? I think a lot of people who might say crime or the border are instead saying the economy or inflation.

GLENN: You're right. It was number three on my list.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean?

STU: Right.

GLENN: You have economy, inflation, the state of democracy, immigration, then climate change with Trump Republicans and crime.

STU: And where was abortion again?

GLENN: Abortion was 5th, 4%.

STU: So think about what they've invested in here.

GLENN: I know.

STU: The democracy thing which is not paying off, the trump Republicans and abortion. They've funneled all of their resources and now there's pretty significant evidence that independent women are turned off by all of this abortion focus. Like wait a minute, I'm talking about independent pro-choice woman who are saying well, you know, pro-choice is an important issue for me, but guys like I gotta pay my bills. I gotta be able to afford bread. They're seeing this as you're focusing on that in this time? I think. Important too, and I want to fight for it, but wait a minute, I can't get my kids to school because gas is 5-dollars a gallon.

GLENN: This is, I mean, this is the number one thing, I mean; the number one lesson from political campaigns in my lifetime has been the economy, the economy. People look at their pocketbook first, first, when things are going badly.

STU: James Carvil.

GLENN: Yeah, it's the economy, stupid. If things are going poorly for the average person the party in charge is not going to do well. How they have, I mean, maybe because they just knew the economy wasn't going to do well because we're just dismantling it. We're just dismantling it.

STU: I think people, a lot of times people look at the economy as people just care about money. The economy is your entire pragmatic life; right?

GLENN: It's your family.

STU: It's everything. It's your entire existence. It's how, if you have enough money you can do the things that you want to do, you can spend your time pursuing the happiness yo want to pursue, there's a reason why people like getting rich. It's not just because they want shiny things.

GLENN: It's not even rich.

STU: I know. But this is why people pursue it.

GLENN: I know.

STU: Not because they want shiny things in their apartment or diamonds, that's all nice but you are able to do the things you want to do, to spend time with your kids instead of busting your butt at a second job. All These things are crucial to peoples lives. While, yes, I don't know what the max is, but maybe we can, maybe there's some liberals in our audience that can answer this, how many abortions can you have in a year? How many in a lifetime? Even if you really love abortion, how many times are you going through that? A couple? I don't know how many per week you can have but I know how many times I go to the grocery store. I know how many times I go to the gas pump. You're doing this all the time. These are things that affect your daily life. While you might think abortion is -- again, I do not support this view, you might think this is a good get out of jail free card

GLENN: This is a bad way to put it, but this is where I you're going through, but it's a luxury item. You know what I mean? It's not a necessity for most

STU: To end the life of a child?

GLENN: For most people they're not like -- it's like you said, get out of free, get out of jail free card. It's something that some people look at as a way out of a problem. So that a luxury item.

STU: Right. We know half the country doesn't agree with at all. Half of the country are males. So you're talking about let's say 25 percent of the country that would even consider at any point getting an abortion, and then you eliminate that to the people who actually do it. So what are you, at 5 percent of the nation? Like, I'm not saying it's not an important issue, but it goes back to quickly how Stacey Abrams talked about this the other day. In your minds you can abort your way out of inflation. You can abort your way into a good economy. That's a totally different view than the average person.

GLENN: You lost me at men can't have babies.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Whitney Webb: How You Can BREAK FREE of the Chains of the Elites

Are you truly free, or is your life quietly controlled by systems most Americans never question? In this eye-opening conversation, Glenn Beck speaks with investigative journalist Whitney Webb about how the Elites, banks, and global systems have created modern forms of enslavement, all while the public remains largely unaware. They discuss the urgent need for local self-reliance, alternative financial systems, and taking personal responsibility to protect yourself and your family. This is a wake-up call for anyone who believes freedom is guaranteed, and it’s time to see the truth and act before it’s too late.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Whitney Webb HERE

Claire's warning: The dark side of gender care EXPOSED

Claire Abernathy was just 14-years-old when doctors told her parents she’d take her own life without hormones and surgery. They promised “gender care” would save her life. Instead, it left Claire with irreversible scars, broken trust, and a lifetime of regret. Her mom was told she was required to comply. No one ever addressed the bullying, or trauma Claire endured before being rushed into medical transition. Now, years later, both Claire and her mother are speaking out and exposing how families are misled, how doctors hide risks, and how children are left to pay the price. With federal investigations now underway, their story is a warning every parent needs to hear.

The most INSANE Deep State story you've never heard

Was an NGO with deep government ties trying to RESTART the opium trade in Taliban-run Afghanistan while former Taliban members were on its payroll...only to be caught DESTROYING the evidence?! The State Department's Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Darren Beattie joins Glenn Beck to expose what he found when he was made Acting President of the United States Institute of Peace. Plus, he debunks ProPublica’s claim that DOGE “targeted” an “Afghan scholar who fled the Taliban.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Darren, welcome to the program. How are you? Darren, are you there? Is he there?

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: Okay. Check if he's there. Is he? Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney.

STU: Trying to shut him down. They don't want peace. They don't want peace.

GLENN: They don't. They don't.

He is -- he is a big-time anti-globalist. I've got to tell you, what we're doing with the State Department. I absolutely love. The State Department has been a big problem for this country for a very long time. It's what's gotten us into these global wars. These endless wars, and everything he is.

And, I mean, I don't know what happened to Marco rube, but he is tremendous.

And the way president Trump is appointing different people like Darren, it's fantastic. Darren, are you there? Darren.

STU: Something must be wrong with the lines. Because we are talking to him offline on the phone here. And it does seem to be working, but not coming through our broadcast board here for whatever reason.

GLENN: Well, let's see if we can get that fixed, and maybe let me just talk here for five, six minutes on something else. Then we'll take a break and come back and see if we can get him.

There's something else that I really want to talk about. And that is this flag-burning thing. Now, it's not an amendment.

This is something that the president is putting up in an executive order and has very little teeth to it.

But I -- I -- look, I understand. As a guy putting an enormous flagpole up at my house today.

I mean, an enormous flagpole.

I love the flag. I love it!

And there are a few things that make me more angry than see somebody you set our flag on fire.

For a lot of people, that's a punch in the gut, especially our military people. And it has been planted on distant battlefields. It's raced after victory. Saluted in the morning, or should be in our schools and folded and given to the hands of grieving families. It feels like spitting on every sacrifice, that ever made this nation possible. And the argument against flag burning is really simple: It dishonors the idea of all of that. Okay?

And it defends millions of people, including me. It disrespects, I think the veterans that bled. The families who mourned. The dream that binds us together.

However, here's the hard truth: Symbols only mean something, in a land where freedom is alive.

If you outlaw the burning of a flag, the you have placed the cloth above the Constitution that it represents. You have made the flag an idol.

We don't worship idols. If you can only praise the flag and never protest it, it just stops being a symbol of freedom. And starts being an idol of obedience.

Now, that's the argument for allowing it. At least to me.

Because the real strength of a free nation is -- is to -- it's -- it's how we protect, not the speech we love, but how we endure the speech we hate!

And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. And, you know, they -- the line they drew wasn't an easy one. Freedom of speech, stops where it directly -- directly insights violence. And that's it same thing, kind of, in this executive order.

You can burn the flag. But if I'm not mistaken, but if it incites violence, then you're in trouble.

And that's true. But the bar of inciting violence is so incredibly high. And it's -- it doesn't have anything to do with speech that offends. It's not speech that stirs anger. Not speech that wants you to punch the speaker in the mouth. It's speech only, that provokes imminent and specific violence.

And unless it's that be with the government doesn't have any right to -- to get into the business of silencing speech. Ever. Ever. Ever.

It is a hard line. And that standard is really hard. It's painfully hard.

Because what our citizenship requires, this is civics. What our citizenships require, is that we defend -- oh, I hate this.

We defend the right of your opponent to mock everything that we hold sacred.

Now, I want you to think of this. You can burn a Bible. You can burn the Word of God. But some want to make it illegal to burn a flag. Where are our priorities? You can burn the Constitution. The words that actually are the ones that stir us into action. But you can't burn a flag.

You can't burn a Koran. Can't burn them. Can't. Can't.

You will -- you will quickly come to a quick end, not legally. But you will come to a quick end. I don't ever want to be like that. Ever!

You burn a Bible. I think you're a monster. What is wrong with you? What is wrong with you?

But you have a right to do it. Why are we drawing a line around the flag? It -- the reason is -- is because we feel things so passionately. And that is really a good thing, to feel love of country so passionately. But then we have to temper that. My father used to tell me, that I think this country needs to hear over and over again, every day. My father -- we would talk to somebody. And we would walk away. And he would go, I so disagree with everything that man just said. But, Glenn, son, he would say. I will fight to the death for his right to say it. He used to say that to me all the time. Which now lees me to believe, I know where I've got my strong opinions from. Because dad apparently would disagree with a lot of people all the time.

But that was the essence of freedom. That is the essence of what sets us apart. Standing for universal, eternal rights like free speech. It's not easy. It means you have to take the size of those people that offend you. It means -- it doesn't mean you have to disagree with it. You can fight against it. You can argue back and forth.

But you -- can you tolerate the insults to the things that you love most. That is so hard, and that is why most of the world does not have freedom of speech. It's too hard! But our Founders believed people are better than that. Our citizens can rule themselves!

And the only way you can rule yourself is if you don't have limits on freedom of speech. So the question is, do we want to remain free? Or do we want to just feel good? It really is that simple. It's why no one else has freedom of speech. It's too hard! I think we're up to the task. Okay. Give me 60 seconds. And then we will try again.

The -- there's certain moments in history, that test not just entire nations, but the hearts of those who live in the nations. And right now, the people of Israel are living in one of those moments. Sirens in the night. Families huddled together.

Elderly men and women. Who remember a time when help never came. All of them wonder. Is anybody going to stand with us, this time?

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews exists to answer that question. They provide food, shelter, security, and hope. Real hope and help in the middle of a crisis! And every act of generosity from people like you sends a clear message. You are not alone. When you support the fellowship, you are joining hands with believers all around the world to lift up God's people, when they need it most. And it is a promise in action. It's a testimony that our faith isn't just words. It's love delivered right on time. And this is your chance to be part of something that really, truly matters. Something that is eternal. To stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel. And say, we're with you. We're not going to fight your wars. Not going to fund your wars. But we're with you. You have a right to live and exist in peace. To learn how you can help. Visit IFCJ.org. IFCJ.org. Go there now. IFCJ.org. Ten seconds. Back to the program.
(music)
All right. Let me -- let me bring Darren in. Darren, are you there now?

DARREN: Yes!
GLENN: Oh, God. Thank goodness.
Thank you for putting up with us. I don't know what happened with the phone system. But, first of all, tell me what the US Institute of Peace is. I've never even heard of it.

DARREN: That is a fantastic question. And I'll try to give the abbreviated answer, because I know we don't have several hours.

GLENN: Good. I know.

DARREN: But US Institute of Peace is one of lesser known, but quite important member of the NGO archipelago, that was created in the '80s. It belongs to the same cohorts as national endowments for democracy.

GLENN: Oh.

DARREN: And some other -- some other better known NGOs that really in the broad context of things. In kind of the sweep of things, was created as a kind of reorganization of the government structure in the aftermath of the church type committee hearings that expose a lot of the dirty dealings of government agencies such as the CIA, and so sort of a broader response to that government lie was to create this NGO layer of governance, with an armed distant plausible deniability, a kind of chameleon character of not exactly being government, not exactly being private, in order to fulfill some of those more sensitive functions that had been exposed in the course of the church hearings.

And so US Institute of Peace is one of those NGOs that had particular focus on conflict regions. But, of course, as I think you -- you suggested earlier, peace requires at the very least, an asterisk. Because there involves a lot of things, that conventional, most American citizens would not think should belong as part of the portfolio of something calling itself an institute of peace.

GLENN: So what was the thing with the -- with this Taliban member that was getting money from us?

DARREN: Right. So this is an interesting case. So there's a whole saga of a takeover of the US institute of peace under -- under DOGE.

And that's really a fascinating story unto itself. Just to give you a sense of what these characters were like. They barricaded themselves in the offices.

They sabotaged the physical infrastructure of the building. There were reports of there being loaded guns within the offices.

GLENN: Wow!

DARREN: There was one, like, hostage situation where they held a security guard under basically kind of a false imprisonment type situation. It was extremely intense.

Far more so than the better known story of USAID. And in the course of all of that, they tried to delete a terabyte of data, of accounting information that would indicate what kind of stuff they were up to.

What kind of people they were paying. And in the course of that, DOGE found that one of the people on their payroll. Was this curious figure, who had a prominent role in the Taliban government. And then seemed to kind of play a bunch of angles across each other.

Sort of one of these sixer types in the middle of Afghanistan.

The question is, what the heck is an organization like this, having an individual, who is a former Taliban member on their payroll.

It underscores how incredibly bizarre the whole arrangement is. And to just reinforce that. I think even more bizarre than having this former Taliban guy on the payroll is the kind of schizophrenic posture exhibited by the chief -- one truly bizarre thing is that one of the US Institute of Peace's main kind of policy agendas was basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade had dissipated under Taliban leadership. They had multiple reports coming out, basically saying, this is horrible, that the opium trade is diminished under the Taliban. Meaning, finding some way to restore it. How bizarre is that!

GLENN: What was their thinking?

DARREN: Well, it's -- it's very strange, and it depends on what kind of rabbit holes you want to go down. But the whole story of opium and Afghanistan and its connection to, you know, government entities, is a -- is a very intricate and delicate and fascinating one. But it seems very clear that the US Institute of Peace was involved in that story to some degree because their public reports. They had a full-the time guy of basically lamenting the fact that the opium trade dissipated under the Taliban. And, meanwhile, they're funding this former Taliban guy.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Now, ProPublica got this. And you have released the statement on it. And ProPublica just completely white-washed this -- said this guy was a victim, and his family was taken hostage. Was his family ever taken hostage because he was exposed?

And correct the ProPublica story, would you?

DARREN: Yeah, I mean, the ProPublica thing, as usual and as expected was a total joke.

GLENN: Yes.

DARREN: I mean, this guy, I'm not an expert on this particular person's history. But what's very clear is he was a former Taliban guy, and he was probably one of these people, who was playing all sides, made a lot of enemies. I know that there were several kind of attempts on his life by the Taliban, in the course of various -- various decades.

This has nothing to do with -- with DOGE.

I mean, he's a known quantity in the region.

And somebody who has made a lot of enemies.

And he was not -- he was on the payroll of the US institute of peace.

And nobody is expecting something like that. So then, and, again, there's this sort of hostile takeover situation.

Where the people are barricading he themselves in. Trying to delete all this data.

And sure enough, what's in the data, is stuff like this.

These random former Taliban guy, making his contract with $130,000.

GLENN: You know, this is the -- this is the real Deep State stuff, that I think bothers people so much.

Look, we expect our CIA to do stuff, we don't necessarily want to do it. We expect it.

When it's in the State Department.

When every department is pushing out money to NGOs to overthrow governments and everything else.

It's out of control!

It's just completely out of control.

And who is overseeing all of that.

DARREN: That's a great question.

I think part of the NGO -- UCEF was almost a cutout of a cutout.

A fourth of its money came from USAID.

In many ways, it was a cutout of USAID. Which itself was a cutout.

So there are many layers of distance. Plausible deniability.

And UCEF, I think institutionally really perfected this chameleon structure of being able to plausibly present itself as government. When that was convenient for what they were doing.

And also to present itself as a private organization, when that was convenient.

It's a very intricate setup that they had, that was truly optimized for this chameleon character of plausible denial operations. In conflict zones. Doing God knows what, with American taxpayer money.

And it's just an absolute hornet's nest.

We have recovered that terabyte that they tried to delete. And once we get things settled in the building itself, I intend to do a kind of transparency effort, whereby we release all of this material to the public.

GLENN: Good. Good.

DARREN: Just like I'm doing at the State Department. I'm currently acting as secretary at the State Department. And doing a transparency effort here. After I eliminated the global engagement center, which was sort of the internal censorship office within the State Department, decided, we've got to -- we've got to air this out to the public.

So within the next couple of weeks.

We'll have our next tranche of helps you of thousands of emails, documenting what this were doing.

GLENN: I would love you to go back on, through those emails.

I think you guys in the State Department are doing an amazing job. Thanks for being on.