RADIOMay 03, 2022

THIS is when our free press stopped working for the PEOPLE

The Department of Homeland Security’s new ‘Disinformation Governance Board’ — which seems eerily similar to 1984’s ‘Ministry of Truth' — proves that Americans’ First Amendment rights are in great danger. But when did one of those rights — our freedom of the press — become so unimportant to actual members of the press? When did journalists and media corporations stop working for the PEOPLE and start working for POLITICIANS instead? Glenn explains how Woodrow Wilson, the White House Correspondent’s Dinner, and a desire for power created a dark path AWAY from truth for members of the mainstream media…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So what happens when you can't say Rachel Lavigne is a dude, man. It's a dude. It's a dude.

What happens when you say, Rachel Lavigne probably shouldn't be the one we're listening to, when she comes out and says, pediatricians all agree on the importance of gender-affirming care for children. What happens when you can't question things? What happens when you can't have an opinion?

See, this is what the First Amendment is all about. The freedom of speech. The freedom to petition your government.

The freedom of press.

There is a really great book out, the know your rights -- know your Bill of Rights book.

And I talk about it in my book, addicted to you're welcome. And I talked about freedom of the press. And how important it is.

It's essential. If we are going to be free. You must be able to tolerate people saying crazy stuff. And when I say you, I especially mean the government. When the freedom of the press was first. And freedom of the speech was first put into the Bill of Rights. It was challenged. How far does that -- how far does that mean?

How far can you go?

Remember Edison, it was about 100 years later. He was like, I have a crowded movie theater. Because we're watching a movie. Don't cry fire.

So it took about 100 years before we got to that. But you can say fire, in a crowded movie house. You can't incite a riot. You can't incite panic. But I've been on stage, in several crowded theaters, all across the country. And I have said from the stage, fire!

There are certain things, like the press now is saying, Elon Musk, he's going to let people just say they're going to rape me, and give me threats of death, on Twitter.

No. No. That's against the law. That's against the law.

So if you break the law, by inciting violence, inciting a riot, well, then that's not freedom of speech.

That's breaking the law. Well, what's protected? Your opinion. Even believe it or not, lies or things you can't prove about the government. This is -- this was really well-thought out. About freedom of the press. Around the turn of the century in the 1800s.

They had the sedition act, and that's where the guys who just wrote the Bill of Rights were like, you know what, they're saying bad things about me, in the government. I don't like it.

And so we went back and forth, and they passed the sedition act.

Now, Woodrow Wilson did the same thing. He tried to do exactly the same thing, and stifle people. And now we're doing it again.

It rears its head, about every 100 years. And that should tell you something. Politicians and people never change.

We're having the same argument. So how do you -- how do you punish people?

When an author, an opinion guy, like I am. When a newspaper prints something, and the government says that's false, and the government has all of the tools at its disposal, it can hide documents. It doesn't have to for national security purposes, release certain information.

When they are the highest authority in the land, and you're like, no. I'm telling you, they're doing this.

How do you prove that?

And do you want the federal government, to be able to say, no. You can't say that!

Would you want Nixon to be able to say, to the Washington Post, you can't publish that!

Would you want the Pentagon to say to the New York Times, you can't publish those papers!

That stuff never happened. Imagine -- imagine how different it would be. How does a government ensure the freedom of the individual and the press, if they're the arbiter of truth?

How do you do that?

Our Founders actually came up with a couple of really good statements. Truth of opinions can't be proved. Allowing truth as a defense of freedom, is like asking a jury to say, what's the best food or drink?

It's an opinion. So you can't prove the truth, of opinions. So opinion is covered.

A citizen should have, and I'm quoting. Should have the right to say everything which is passion suggests. He may employ all of his time. All of his talents. And if he's wicked enough to do so, in speaking against the government matters. And using things, that are false, scandalous, or malicious.

Despite this, even if he condemns the principle of Republican institutions, centers the measures of our government, and every department and officer thereof. And ascribes the measures of the former, and conduct of the latter however upright to the basis motive, even if he ascribes to the measure and acts which never had existence. Thus violating at one, every principle of decency and truth.

He needs to be protected in his speech. Holy cow. You want to know how far it goes?

That's it. That's it. This was something incredibly new and novel.

No government had ever done anything like this. It was so radical, we're still debating it.

That's -- that's the key to our Founders. They were radicals. So much so, that we don't think of this, as old, dusty, and irrelevant. That's as irrelevant -- that's as relevant today, as anything else.

John Thompson wrote, the government cannot tell a citizen, you shall not think this. Or that upon certain subjects. Or if you do, it is at your own peril.

This was the first time, the government was the slave.

Not the other way around.

The master was the citizen. We could tell government what they can and cannot do. But we cannot have the government tell us, what we can and can't do.

Now, it took about 100 years, before all of this was dismantled again. Progressives started to dismantle free speech in the way that it would help them, and injure their foes.

But John Stuart Mill, and his book on liberality said, the silencing of opinion is a particular evil.

For if that opinion is correct, then we're robbed of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth.

And if it's wrong, we're deprived of a deeper understandings of the truth. In its collision with error.

Now, I brought up the progressives, because the White House Correspondents' Dinner happened this weekend. And nobody paid attention to it. Nobody paid attention to it.

Because we know who all of these people are. There are 3,000 people that attended this. And they all gave themselves a big round of applause. Because they all showed their vaccination certificates at the door. That's great. But what is this? How did this even begin?

What does to do with the DHS, and the ministry of truth?

I'll tell you, in 60 seconds. These days, kids grow up in a virtual world, they're practically raising each other through YouTube and TikTok, dancing through the shallow world, filled with strange challenges and weird stunts. It's very different growing up today.

With all that noise in their day, they need help. They need help finding purpose so they don't waste their lives. Or worse, lose the drive to understand and maintain the liberty that we all share.

You need to show them examples of what's possible. And connect them with a bigger vision of what other kids have achieved.

The Tuttle times, does just that. Tuttle Twins. They have a magazine. A monthly magazine for kids from the creators of the Tuttle Twins. And every issue has big ideas that promote personal responsibility. And freedom. Like, you know, owning their own health and education. As well as profiles about kids who started their own businesses.

You can now get access to the magazine at a reduced price, for $49 for an entire year. This will inspire your kids, and give them examples of other kids doing great things.

You know, it's basically what the school does. You know, every day, when they get in. When they watch the CNN magazine. You know, right at the beginning of school. That's really -- except, it's not like that. In fact, it's probably 100 percent different that happen that. 180 degrees in the other direction. This is about personal responsibility, and liberty. TuttleTwinsBeck.com.

Get the magazine. It's 49 bucks for 12 months. It's TuttleTwinsBeck.com. Ten-second station ID.

(music)

So the president has always had press conferences. And what changing in the 1900s, is the -- the press used to work for the people. Their idea was, that the people in Washington DC, are the guys who are corrupt. And have power. And are trying to steal money and power, from the people.

Woodrow Wilson and the progressives changed all of that. And they changed it. In 1914, Woodrow Wilson decided, I'm not going to give any more press conferences. And everybody was like, wait. What?

And he's like, no, I don't think so

And all of the reporters went crazy. He's like, okay. I'll have them from time to time. I'll have them. But I'm inviting only the people that I want to invite.

That's where the White House Correspondents' Association started. They started, because they saw the White House as an enemy. And the White House was trying to cut off access. And so the White House correspondents got together and said, hey. We're the ones who will cover. And you don't tell us, who will be in, and who will be out. Okay?

Then Woodrow Wilson had this idea, what if we just get them all together, and we make friends?

We just bring them into our circle?

This happened around the same time, they were starting with Colonel House, the best friend of Woodrow Wilson. When they started the Council of Foreign Relations. And no matter what it is today, what it was started as, was let's get the scholars, the politicians, and the media together to explain to them, so they can understand, and explain it to the people.

Because the people are too stupid. This is where you start getting the press, looking down their nose at the average American. Before that, it wasn't happening.

After the Wilson administration, they start thinking, that they are better. Because they know. Because they're informed. They talk to all the experts. They talk to the politicians. They know who they are. We just had dinner the other night. And we made mad passion and love after that.

And so that's -- they start gathering as a group of intellectuals, politicians, and media.

In 1920, I think, the first White House correspondents -- there's like 50 people there, in '24, Silent Cow goes. And Charlie Chaplin makes fun of him. But it was a very small group of just the correspondents.

It was a small group. They would put -- back in the '50s and '60s, Frank Sinatra would show up and sing. But there was no comedy until the '80s. That's when they started bringing the comedians on.

And the comedians used to be neutral. And kind of, you know, Jay Lenoish. So it wasn't -- you know, nobody's hair was on fire. And then in '94, Don Imus, a good friend of ours, went on -- went on the stage and started making fun of Bill Clinton.

And, you know, cigars. And everything else. Ninety-four -- it was '96, I think.

That's when -- that's when -- that's when things kind of changed at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

Thank you, Don Imus. But Don Imus was doing something that none of the rest of the press would. He actually talked about -- he burned everybody to the ground.

That's what should happen, and that is exactly the kind of stuff, this new disinformation governance board, is involved in. In fact, do we happen to have the clip from the weekend?

Here's Mayorkas, cut number seven. Here's -- this is the Secretary of DHS.

GLENN: Will American citizens be monitored?

VOICE: No.

VOICE: Guarantee that?

GLENN: He didn't --

VOICE: What we do -- we in the Department of Homeland Security, don't monitor American citizens.

VOICE: You don't. But will this board change that?

VOICE: No, no, no. The board does not have any operational authority or capability. What it will do, is gather together, best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation.

GLENN: Okay.

VOICE: From foreign state adversaries.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

Mr. Secretary, follow-up, are you using any other agencies, that do monitor? Are you using agencies, from other countries, that will monitor?

They're not going to give you the truth anyway. But whenever anybody in the government says, oh. We're not going to -- I can guarantee you. They're already doing it.

We're already like, oh, yeah. In fact, I knew that question was coming. Because I've been monitoring between you and your culverts on the questions you're going to ask me today. Of course. Of course, they're monitoring.

STU: I love how they blow it off as like, hey, we're announcing this big initiative. It doesn't do anything though. Whatever you think two may do. It doesn't do those things. It does nothing.

It's a total waste of time. Don't worry about it at all. Because it's only -- it's a positive idea that does not accomplish a thing. That -- wait. What?

Sharia Courts & Demographic Takeover - America's Growing Problem with Political Islam

Political Islam is expanding into the West through demographic pressure, parallel legal systems, exclusive community structures, and a belief that Western nations are too naïve to stop it — and Glenn Beck breaks down the evidence. From Marco Rubio’s warning that Islamic political movements openly seek dominance over the United States, to a Texas developer boasting about “manipulating kafirs,” to archived footage of imams defending Sharia punishments on American soil, the signs are no longer subtle. Many Muslims reject political Islam and flee from these systems — but by ignoring what is happening in our own backyard, America risks repeating Europe’s collapse. The question isn’t whether Political Islam exists; it’s whether we’re willing to confront what it demands.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me start first. Interview yesterday with Sean Hannity. Here's Rubio, talking about the dangers of radicalized Islam.

VOICE: Ultimately, armed radical Islamic movements in the world, identify the West at large, but the United States in particular, as the greatest evil on earth. And every chance they have -- the notion that somehow radical Islam would be comfortable with simple controls and progress in Iraq and Syria is not born out by history.

Radical Islam has shown that their desire is not simply to occupy one part of the world and be happy with their own little caliphate. They want to expand. It's revolutionary in its nature. It seeks to expand and control more territories and more people. And radical Islam has designs openly on the West, on the United States, on Europe. We've seen that for the rest there as well, and they are prepared to conduct acts of terrorism. In the case of Iran, nation state actions, assassinations, murders, you name it.

Whatever it takes for them to gain their influence, and ultimately, their domination in different cultures and societies.

That's a clear and eminent threat to the world and to the broader west, especially to the United States who they identify as the chief source of evil on the planet. Okay?

The reason why they hate the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the leadership of the UAE and Bahrain, is because they've allowed the United States to partner with them. That's why they hate them. They consider them infidels for it. They hate Israel.

But they also hate America. And they hate anyone in the world, that we have influence, they seek to attack, including here in the homeland.

If you look at the domestic terrorists, the attacks that have happened here domestically, the overwhelming majority of them have been inspired by radical Islamic viewpoints. That includes the shooting in the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida. That includes the Saudi pilot in Pensacola, my home state. Two attacks.

GLENN: Okay.

So I -- I would like to propose we stop calling it radical Islam. Because it's not radical Islam. It's political Islam. There is religious Islam, and I know a lot of religious Muslims that are good people. Okay? I don't put them in the same category because I don't want Sharia law.

That's political Islam. It's not radical. It's what happens all over the world.

It's not radical, it's political.

You remember, if you're my age. When the wall came down. And we finally got to converse with Russians.

And we always thought -- me growing up. I always thought the Russians.

It's Vladimir. Vladimir. Look, he's spying.

Natasha. He's spying.

Okay. That's what we thought when we were kids.

That's not who the Russians were. The Russians were good people. They were decent people.

They wanted the same kind of things we wanted. We don't agree on everything.

They want to be left alone. Raise their kids. Have a chance at some success and retirement.

Just leave me alone.

Most of us are like that. What happens is, our politicians get in the way. The politicians. The political systems are the ones that are the problem. We don't call it radicalized communism.
It's communism. Okay? It's a political philosophy.
This is a political philosophy.

Political Islam -- it's not radical.

It's just a political philosophy, and that political philosophy, just like communism, wants to dominate the world. Unlike communism, political Islam is so incredibly arrogant. It's inevitable to them. Why? Birthrates.

That's why! Birthrates. And they think we're stupid. And, you know what, so do I! I think we're stupid too. Come on, man. Right? Are we not stupid? We look over at Europe. Are the grand Europeans, that colonized the whole world and are abusing everyone, because they're so sophisticated and so powerful, and everything else. Really are they?

Because look at how dumb they are being right now with their own countries in Europe. They're committing suicide. And so are we.

Now, there's this development that is happening in Texas. Let me -- let me give you an interview, a piece of an interview done by a Muslim developer, of Muslim communities, and -- and how -- and how it actually works.

Listen to these 35 seconds of this interview.

VOICE: The way -- like, you can't make it exclusive, like non-Muslims are not allowed. What we're doing, there's something called a secession fee. I don't know what it's called in Dubai. Like your maintenance fee -- the service fee, to cut the grass, to remove the snow, and whatnot. So that service fee will put that 75 percent of the service fee you're paying, close to (another language).

VOICE: Automatically, if you are a practicing Christian, I would advise you, why help the Muslims? You know. They do their own thing.

Right? So this is the way we're going to put the costs, and our attorney already put it in there.

GLENN: This is the way they manipulate the kafirs. The kafirs are you. The non-Muslim people. The infidels.

And they -- they are manipulating. Because, ha, ha, ha. And why would you do that? That's how they make it an exclusive Muslim community. Okay. And what do you get in those Muslim communities? I want to take you back to 2015.
I had been in Irving, Texas. My studios are in Irving, Texas. And I had been there for maybe three years. And it is the most diverse ZIP code in all of America. Which is a great thing. Except, it's also becoming very, very Islamic.

And that is totally fine, as long as we're not talking political Islam.

Unfortunately, we are. And the religion teaches that you can lie, to an infidel. You can lie if it helps Islam.

Okay.

So I had a couple of imams from the Dallas area, come in, from -- from, you know, where all of this is happening. And I just -- I sat them down. And we just had a great conversation.

I want you to listen to this, what finally came out of the mouth of one of the imams. Listen to this.

VOICE: I'm here. I'm sorry to say, back to the first point. I'm here to discuss an issue with the Islamic Tribunal.

So please, don't -- allow us to have a situation. Maybe, we are ready for any discussion.

VOICE: No. I know that.

VOICE: We are ready for any point to lead the discussion. But the main point here, we are -- the reason we are here to discuss this issue. What kind of cases, Islam tribunal have.

And we start with the Sharia.

And why the people are afraid from Sharia.

I'm sorry to say, at one point related to this.

It's not just in Sharia law. Not just in Islamic law. It's everywhere.

Who said that just in Islamic law?

That's even Sharia, in Jewish Sharia, in Christian Sharia. In America here, we cut -- we -- we -- we cut it for some reason. So I'm asking you an easy question.

If anyone kill another, he should have got killed by a law, by Islamic law, by -- by -- by governor. By -- he should have got killed.

What is wrong with that?

If a thief, jump to go back house. Scare your wife. Scare your children. Scare your neighbor.

And they did that with our stores, this is the law. The law to cut his head.

Because if he feels my hands were cut because of that. He will think about this 100 times. He will never do it.

And if you do that one time, they will never do it again.

Look at how many millions of dollars Americans here or other states or other -- outside has been for the -- to keep, the criminal in -- in jail. A lot of millions of -- we can see that just -- that's it. Because he did something good in the whole community. And they scare the whole community.

Why not. Back please to the point. Islamic tribunal.

Yes. We never deal with anything of that. We don't have authority for that. We don't have power for that.

GLENN: But you're okay. You seem to be okay with that. If you had the power for that happen.

No. You don't --

JASON: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. We -- as imam said, we have system. We are very organized people.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: Sorry, for this example. Somebody can -- might add. I should have killed him.

GLENN: Right.

VOICE: I had to take this case to the judge, and the judge have to -- to the governor. There's a system, a procedure, that I have to follow.

So it's not like this -- this guy gets killed. No, no. We have -- I -- I give you just an easy example for leader. This is after prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. He sent one to Yemen. And he told him, before he leaves, he ask him, almost as a habit. What did you do if the people bring a thief for you?

He said, I will cut his hand. Okay. He said, you do that. Okay. He said, after -- after -- he said, okay. If one person came with me, without work, and I blew it. And I blew it. I will cut your head. Because he has no job. So he -- if you run from the sword or grab something from here, to eat. Nothing happened to you. So but if you have your job and enough income, and you took -- a bunch of children and you have house and you have car. And you -- or a thief from here or there. So this is the law. Not to please, the point with Sharia. I ask people. We are not here to do that at all.

It is not our authority. It's not our power. It's not our job. We have --

GLENN: You've got to stop. You've got to stop. Okay. This is amazing to me. Because you hear how passionate he is, about how logical that is. Okay? I mean, you just have to do it, it just makes sense to everybody, we just cut your hands off.

And the Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, and he he's preached this forever. I mean, it just works. It just works.

Of course, we wouldn't want to do that. But it just works. I mean, let me tell you about it again. Really?

Really? You don't want that to happen. Because you're in the United States, but you're cool with it everywhere else. Everywhere else.

But here it's different!

But my religion, which requires me to say, peace upon him, after I mention the prophet Muhammad, my religion, which is extraordinarily well-defined.

It has these raise. In political Islam.

That must be done. Because the Koran requires it, in political Islam.

But we're not going -- yeah. We've got our own little laws going on now.

We have our courts.

Who we're never going to go that far. Wait. Wait. You believe in political Islam? Of course I do. But you're not going to do it?

Of course not. But the Koran commands you to do it?

Of course it does.

You follow every dictate in the Koran? Of course I do.

But not that one? Come on. Come on. Does anybody really believe that?

Now, that does not mean Muslims believe that. Many do. Many do not. The ones who do not are the ones who have lived under it, and have escaped here. And want a different kind of Islam.

And by just turning a blind eye to this, because they know how it happens. They saw it in their company. They don't want it happening here.

You know, we just take care of things like marriages. Oh, so when a guy says, I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you. You're divorced, and she loses everything. Oh, you mean the kind, if she wants to testify against her husband on adultery, she has to have two witnesses, plus her, because her voice and one other person as a witness does not equal him, because she's not equal to a man. Oh. Okay. All right.

But you have that one. And that's okay. No. It's not okay. It's not okay.

It shouldn't be okay in any western country, period. Should not be okay.

Unfortunately, we're all turning a blind eye to it.

Breaking the chains of deception: Embracing true liberation

Modern society repeats the phrase “the truth shall set you free” without understanding the warning behind it. Freedom is impossible when a person is bound by hidden lies, self-deception, and the silent chains of sin that shape the heart. Cultures built on illusions collapse into confusion, and individuals who let lies define their identity become easily manipulated by fear, shame, and control. True liberation begins the moment illusions die — when the masks fall and reality is seen as it truly is. Truth is not a concept to invent or a philosophy to debate, but a Person who exposes darkness, breaks spiritual bondage, and empowers ordinary people to stand unshaken before the powers that depend on keeping them confused. This is the freedom that terrifies tyrants and transforms nations: the freedom of someone who has encountered Truth Himself and can no longer be enslaved by deception.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So yesterday, I was at church.
And somebody said something along the truth will set you free. And I thought, I -- I don't even know what the truth even is anymore.

You know, the truth will set you tree. I mean, it's been reduced to a bumper sticker. You know, a slogan we stitch on the pillows or hang on our walls with a little kitty cat. "Hang in there. Truth will set you free." Truth will set you free. Jesus spoke those word the first time. And he was issuing a warning. He wasn't comforting. He was confronting people. He spoke those words to people who believed, absolutely believed that they were already free. Let me ask you this: Are you free?

Most Americans, most people in the West will say, yes!

Yes!

Children of Abraham, keepers of tradition, moral guardians of our age, you're not free.

You're not free. Because when -- when Jesus was talking to those moral guardians of his age. He was saying it to them: You're not free! You're slaves, and you don't even know it.

This is the tragedy of the human condition. We are -- once you lose -- once you lose the narrative of where these things came from, you no longer understand what the words even mean. Okay?
Our chains are not chains that rattle. Okay?

It's not the same kind of chain. But it is a chain in every way there is a chain. Ours are quiet. They're internal. They're self-forged most of them.

But because they're invisible, we treat the bond that come we're in, like normal life. Christ, when he said those words, he named that bondage plainly. I want you to listen to this. Because I just want you to hear. We're all struggling. Glenn, how do you know it's true?

I don't know. I don't know.

I -- I -- I ask that question all the time.
How do I know what's true and what's not?

I don't know! But it is my job to find it. And sometimes I find it, sometimes I don't.

But every day, I struggle with it. But that's not the truth.

The truth shall set you free. It's not politics. It's not Rome. It's not Washington. It's not your circumstance.

It's sin. The unyielding gravitational pull inside of all of our hearts that just banged us away from what's true. What's holy. What's sacred.

When -- when Jesus was saying this, he named the jailer. Lies!

Okay. Lies about what?

Lies about who we are. Who are you?

Once you answer that, and maybe this comes before answering that, why are you here? Who sent you?

What difference does your life make? Do you have a soul?

Who are you? Lies to you every day about what matters the most. Lies about what or who will save us.

Whole civilizations are built. Ours included are built on lies, because lies are comforting.

Rome, remember, promised peace. They were crucifying people by the thousands. And yet, they were the ones saying peace!

The enlightenment promised perfect human reason. You can't have perfect human reason and ignore the broken human heart. You can't!

Our hearts are all broken. We don't even recognize it anymore. We're so empty. We're so lost. And we're all struggling, for what is true. How do I know? I've got to follow that guy. I've got to listen to that guy.

You're an enemy. What are you talking about? You don't even get to know what truth is.

Because we live in a time right now, where we're promising ourselves the truth is whatever we feel right now, whatever I deem the truth is.

You don't believe in the truth, then you're an enemy. But if truth is subjective, then freedom is an illusion.

And freedom is only an illusion when lies root our world.

Because every lie is a leash. And the moment you believe it, we hand that leash to somebody else, some other power to pull it.

So -- so what is Jesus even meaning, when he says, the truth will set you free?

And this is so important, because if you understand this truth, everything else falls into place. It will take you a while. But it will.

He's saying this: Freedom begins the minute your illusions die.

The moment the masks are ripped off.

The moment you stop defending that lie, that keeps you comfortable!

Look, I'm a recovering alcoholic. Do you know what the hardest part was? First part was to admit that I was an alcoholic. And I had a problem. Because the alcoholics are a wino. They're living in the treat. That's not true. That's not true. That's a lie I told myself, to stop me from stopping drinking.

I'm not an alcoholic. Because that's what an alcoholic is. That's a lie. An alcoholic is whatever you are, if you're drinking, and you stop.

And then when I had to put my life back together, because first just admit the problem. Then look at the problem. Then admit you're powerless over it.

Then just vomit it all out. Get all those lies out of you. And the minute you start vomiting those lies out, you're like, there's nothing left.
Because my whole life is built on that lie.

The moment you stop pretending that the prison cell is actually a sanctuary, you're free!

I know I've lived it.

But it doesn't help you necessarily know what's true in politics and everything else. It just gives you perspective. And that's what we've lost.

This is the part we forget.

Truth is not an idea. Truth is not a philosophy. Truth is a person. I am the truth. Not I carry the truth. Not I teach the truth.

I am the truth. That's what he says. Which means the truth is not something you discover like a treasure in the dirt.

It is someone you meet. And when you finally meat him, you begin to see reality as it actually is.

And everything else that you thought was important, is -- you realize, that's a lie. None of that is important.

And believe me, when that happens, you become very dangerous.

Not to society. Not to your neighbors. But to tyrants.

To liars. To manipulators.

Anyone who depends on keeping you confused. Ashamed, and afraid.

You have total freedom. And you scare the living batcrap out of them!

Because the man who has met truth, cannot be blackmailed by lies. Why do you think tyrants need to stop religion first?
They couch this every single time. And, well, it's religion that's keeping you down!

No. It's not. Not if you are following the truth! Him! Because he frees you from those lies! And when you're freed from those lies, you know what to stand up for.

You know the big right and wrongs. You may not know the policies. But you know the big ones.

And you can't be intimidated by a threat. You can't be enslaved by shame.

You have nothing left to hide. Nothing left to prove.

Nothing left to fear. That's freedom. Not, I can go out and say things and not be offended.

No!

Freedom to become who you were really, truly made to be.

A person no longer owned by sin.

Somebody who is no longer defined by the past. Imagine how we would change the world, right now.

If I said to you, there is a way to get rid of everything that you and your -- and your -- you know, great, great grandfather's ever did.

It's all gone. It's all washed away. Everything you've ever done. It's gone!

And you're no longer trapped behind the walls of your own illusions of time.

You're starting fresh. Think about how many NGOs would no longer be of use!

Think about how many political people would no longer be of use.

Think about all of the lies that are said every day. That you would laugh at.

And you would scare them out of their minds!

Because they would know, you don't fear them at all, because you know they're a lie, and so does everyone else!

The world will offer you self-expression.

Jesus offers liberation!

The world tells you, craft your own truth. Jesus tells you, encounter the truth!

And walk out of the cell, transformed!

That's the freedom worth living for. That's the freedom worth defending with your life.

That's the freedom that scares the pants off of tyrants. You want to know how to know what is true? And what is a lie?

You want to know, being able to decipher truth. If you haven't met the truth, I don't think you're going to be able to. Because you don't know what true freedom is. And there will be still parts of you, that are terribly, terribly afraid.

100% of FAKE Applications Were Approved! - The Obamacare Scandal that MUST Be Prosecuted

A new GAO report reveals that 100% of fake Obamacare applicants—fake names, fake Social Security numbers, even dead people—were approved for taxpayer-funded subsidies, exposing a system so bloated and politically insulated that fraud has become indistinguishable from function. Tens of thousands of phantom identities received coverage, billions were lost through COVID-era credits, and yet no one in Washington is being held accountable. This isn’t a clerical error—it’s a national crisis. When fraud is routine and oversight is nonexistent, the question becomes unavoidable: is this incompetence or a system designed to fail?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There is a story going on right now. That -- that shows you what happens when a government grows so massive, so unaccountable, so convinced of its own benevolence. That it can no longer tell the difference between literally the living and the dead.

Now, I want to preface this with I want to give everybody the benefit of the doubt here. But I'm not sure they deserve it.

Let me give you the facts. We now have, in black and white, a new accountability government office report.

It's not some blogger in the basement. You know, this is not me saying it. This is GAO. And it shows that faith people. Phony Social Security numbers. And even the dear departed, were routinely approved for taxpayer funded Obamacare subsidies. Now, I emphasize the word routinely, because what I mean by that is 100 percent of the GAO's fictitious applications were approved.

100 percent!

Every single one that was fake was approved.

Okay?

You could -- honestly, you could have taken a napkin and scribbled the words John Doe. Totally real citizen. Thrown some numbers up for a Social Security number. That you pulled out of a fortune cookie, and the federal government would have said, you've got to send this guy a check.

It says right here, he's a citizen here. They would have sent tens of thousands of dollars to your insurance company to reward the fraud.

Okay? This is not a glitch. This is not a clerical error. This is massive fraud.

Once again. Systemic failure engineered, by design. Protected by politicians and politics.

Funded by your sweat. How long do you have to work every day, to pay for just the fraud?

I mean, it is getting to the point to where it's -- it's obscene.

And honestly, if I don't start seeing people go to jail, I said this -- I will start saying this every day now for the next couple of weeks.
I said at the beginning of the Trump administration.

And when they appointed Pam Bondi, I'm not going to give Pam all the room she needs for a year.

Because you just don't throw prosecutions together. Okay?

But I have seen these investigations going on now, for a year. I have seen these investigations going on in Congress for, what?

Two years! It was happening during their -- the last Trump administration. And it's happening now. I've seen Congress do these investigations. I haven't seen a single person's go to jail. What the hell are you spending my money on? Are you just chasing smoke? Because that's what it seems like, except you keep coming out and saying, oh, my gosh, look at this, look at this. But I never see a name attached to it, and that name also, attached to an indictment.

And I'm sorry. But on the year anniversary, I'm -- I'm going to start coming after Pam Bondi and the DOJ. Because enough is enough. How much time do you need? There's obvious problems here. On multiple fronts. Not just this. And I am really happy to see the DOJ and everybody else, come after, for instance, everybody who was guilty in Minnesota. I want to see jail time. You've taken a billion dollars of the taxpayer's money, and you have just given it away. And in many cases, to terrorists! You've taken literally food out of the mouth of children. You have taken money that was supposed to go for kids with autism. And you've sent it over to Somalia, to Al-Shabaab.

I don't know. I think some people should go to jail.

And I am not happy, if it's just the people who are at the low end.

I want to see the names that excused it, that covered it up. Because you don't get away with a billion dollar heist. And then this is just one. This is just one. You don't get away with these, without protection high above.

Okay?

So let me go back to what the GAO found here. This is not Minnesota. This is another case, okay?

This is Obamacare. Every fake identity submitted in 2024 was approved. Eighteen out of 20 fake people were still getting subsidized coverage the following year. So they got coverage the first year. They still were getting coverage the next year. One Social Security number, just one, was used for the equivalent of 71 years of coverage in one single year.

So they've got coverage that you -- it would take you 71 years to be able to amass. They got it in one year. That's one Social Security number. 66,000 Social Security numbers received subsidies, didn't match a single living person. 66,000.

58,000 matched Social Security death records. So 66,000 didn't exist. 58,000 did exist. But they weren't out dead, God rest their souls. They didn't need health insurance. Okay. Know

There's upwards of 6 million people who aren't actually within the income category that they're claiming credits as if they were in that income category. Yeah. I -- I don't make enough money, so I should get this.

Oh, really? Except, you do make that amount of money. In certain states, there are three to four times as many people enrolled in 100 to 150 percent of the poverty rate in those $0 plans. There's three to four times as many people enrolled in those states that actually exist in those states.
Three to four times. How do you make that error?

How's this happen?

So these COVID credits have just produced upward of 27 to $30 billion in fraud. This is just in Obamacare. That's it! Oh. But this is going to reduce -- this is going to reduce your payments.

No. It didn't. In fact, now it's just pushing us deeper and deeper into debt. Just in a deeper way than we project. This is not about health care. This is about national survival or national suicide. Which do you choose?

This is about a government program that is so unbelievably bloated. So politically insulated. That they become impossible to distinguish fraud from function.

Hmm.

But maybe that's the point.

That possible?

Glenn Beck Warns of Dangerous Flaw in Proposed Trump Accounts

Glenn Beck breaks down the newly proposed “Trump Accounts” and explains why this seemingly good idea hides a dangerous flaw that America has seen before. Drawing parallels to Thomas Paine’s rejected 1797 proposal and the Founders’ refusal to endorse redistribution, Glenn warns that once a federal entitlement is created, it never stops expanding, especially once future administrations take control. He argues that this is a line the Right cannot cross without paying a heavy price in the future. Is America about to open a door it can’t close...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I want to talk about the Trump, you know, savings account or what is that called. Savings. Trump accounts. I -- I want to talk to somebody. And so they're -- they're lining up today, hopefully for the show today. They're lining up the person that actually was the designer of these Trump accounts.

And I want to -- I want to ask him about, what's the difference between this and Thomas Paine?

You know, Thomas Paine. Do you know what it was called? When he -- he suggested it in 1797 and it was basically a Trump account. When you turned -- and, I think, let me look at this here.

Was it 1521? I can't remember.
Yeah, at age 21, for a start-in life, you got 15 pounds. That's about $3,000 today.

Then you get 10 pounds per year after 50, for a retirement.

The problem was, the Founders, they rejected this -- just, right wholesale. Just nope!
It didn't get very far. And that's because they were like, no, you're raising taxes. On, what? Inheritance.

If you had money, they wanted to add a 10 percent tax to what you were going to pass to your children. So then that would go to others. And they were like, that's redistribution of wealth. We have no right to do that. No right to do that.

At all. So, no. We're not doing it. But you know what they called it?

You know what Thomas Paine called it? You want to talk about things just repeating over and over and over again.

He called it agrarian justice. It was social justice.

It was farm justice. Land justice.

Isn't that incredible?

STU: Yeah. The whole thing makes me very nervous.

I have to be honest with you.

You go back, obviously to the historical basis of it.

It doesn't seem. Like, a founder liked it.

It's not without any bases in our history.

GLENN: Thomas Paine was not a founder.

No. No. No.

It's very -- and I learned this.

It's actually a tight group. To be a Founder, you had to be one of them that signed the Declaration of Independence, or helped write it.

And also, the Constitution!

So to be a Founder, you had to be involved in one of those two moments. And he wasn't.

He was very important.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: But he was not a Founder.

STU: I do think of him in that category.

As an influence. But not maybe technically accurate.

GLENN: Influence. Okay.

STU: I think about the modern consequences of it as well.

Because, yeah. Sure, we can say it's a thousand dollars now. What happens when God, Gavin Newsom gets control of this program. What happens when, you know, some leftist, they're going to -- every Congress is going to have a new argument about how they want to expand that accounts. Not thousands. It's 3500. It's 6200. It's 8500. It will continue to go up, year after year after year after year. And it will be almost impossible to oppose.

GLENN: So here's where it did pass. It passed in the 1860s. Something like his agrarian justice passed. But it was called the homestead act.

And that was different because we wanted to settle the West. We had all of this land. We wanted to settle. And so we would give you the land. But you had to work and improve the land.

So the government. The country got something out of it. We had all this land, you can go settle it.

You can have a plot of land. However many acres. But you have to do something with it. You have to improve the land, because that will improve everybody ever seen lot in life. Okay?

The next thing that we did that was like this, was GI Bill.

But if you were in war, you got education. You did something for that. You weren't just born.

That's the problem with these things.

You can't just say no. Because then it becomes a right. And rights continue to grow and grow and grow. Rights are given by God. You don't have a right to this.

STU: Is there a reason -- there's a reason why the left keeps saying health care is a right. Right?

GLENN: Yeah, exactly right.

STU: Because once people are convinced of that, they can grow it to any level -- and have any level of control over you and your money.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

STU: But there is a movement on the right, that is relatively defined at this point. I'm curious to see where Mike Lee is on the accounts. Senator Mike Lee from Utah, at times, talks about certain tax breaks, making for families and trying to improve those. And his -- the opinion there. And I think this is a growing movement on the right. Which is, we need to take steps through the government, to encourage the nuclear family.

To encourage things we think are good. Right?

The government should step in and work toward goals, that are -- that we believe are good. Rather than just letting the free market kind of run itself. And that's been a debate on the right obviously. That's been going on for the past few years. Do you happen to know where Mike Lee is on that?

GLENN: I just texted him. I'll see if he texted me back there.

STU: I was going to Google it. I'll just text him. That's much better.

GLENN: I guess I could Google.

STU: Yeah, no.

GLENN: He's probably like, why don't you just Google it?

STU: That --

GLENN: It will be easier to have you write it to me.

STU: It is an interesting thought. Because I think the motivation here by Trump is -- is good, right?

He's trying to say, hey, kids, get a positive start in life.

GLENN: No.

STU: Obviously savings is good. Sometimes parents start off on the wrong foot, they're not able to save for their kids. I get the motivation being good. Obviously, we could see how this spirals out of control. It's not the way the government is supposed to run in my view. The concern level for me on these is massively high.

GLENN: And rightfully so. Because you're absolutely right. What it starts as is not necessarily what it's going to end as.
And what other doors open up because of this.

And that's -- that's my biggest concern -- so he says I haven't spoken about them.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: But between you and me. So I'm not going to tell you. Between you and me.

STU: I was going to say, please just don't just read this text cold.

GLENN: No. When we get into the break, I'll write it back. With what can I say about your opinion?

STU: Yeah. That's interesting.

GLENN: It's the interesting. What I'm reading from him is actually interesting.

STU: Tilt that screen.

GLENN: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

But, anyway, yeah.

I mean, the -- the idea is noble. And it is good.

It's -- it's honestly.

It's -- it's a little like getting rid of the filibuster.

If you return the filibuster back to what it was, before the progressives destroyed it. So you had to stand up, and you had to make your case.

And as long as you could stand there, you can make your case, and you can stop things. But the progressives got rid of all that. Okay?

Now, you don't even have to stand there.

Just vote on a filibuster.

Yeah. I don't even know. But if you want to return it to the way it was. Which was nothing, but a break. It was not a stop.

It was a break.

So you could -- you could slow the system down, so people could go, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

I disagree with this. You know, let's -- let's rally the people. And let's rethink this.

That's good.

But to get rid of it, it might be good for us right now. I can guarantee you, it will be very bad for us in the future.

Because you're not going to have control of the House and the Senate.

You're just not. And when they have it, I mean, that's what they wanted to do. And we were against it. And we were against it because we know what they would have done with it. Well, you're going to have it. And then, what?

And then when you lose it, what do you think they're going to do with it?

You just can't cross these lines. Because it -- it will come back to roost with you. And you won't like it. This is why -- this is -- we say this all the time.

You can't -- the Constitution cuts both ways. You know it's Constitutional -- you know, when you look at something and go, oh, I really want that to happen, but it's not constitutional. Okay.

Then we don't do it. Because the Constitution will slap you in the face sometimes. And be your best friend the other time. It cuts both ways. It doesn't cut the way you always want it to.

That's the problem. People try to make the Constitution. And our system into something that always serves us.

Well, it doesn't.

It will serve the other side. It will serf the purpose that is across to your purpose every once in a while.

But it's steadfast.

It's always based on something real, and eternal. Not your emotions. Not what you want to happen. But what is the best system of fairness man has ever devised. And once you start getting into the mix of that. You are going to screw everything up.

And that is why our country is in the mess it's in.

STU: I think, Glenn, too. When you break the seal for a thing like Trump accounts. You just wind up with all.

Medicare is a good example of this to me.

Medicare is this program. Obviously, even though a Democrat started it. Like, in theory, outside of their behind the scenes motivation of wanting to expand the government and all of that.
Of course, it's a good motivation for health care for seniors. Right? Of course.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

STU: And also, I will say this, you know, when Medicare Part D comes out.

Which is the medicine, prescription drugs.

And that was a massive expansion of Medicare. That happened under a Republican.

And while I don't want that massive expansion, once you have Medicare, how is there not a Medicare part D? How is there not a prescription drug part of it?

GLENN: So that is my case, and we're seeing it now. Once you have Obamacare. Once you have universal.

Then you have the right to tell people. You must tell people, you can't have that food!

You can't have it. Because it's costing all of us money.

Your health is now -- it now involves all of us.

So now, how do you have that? It's just this horrible slope, that once you start going down. It's logical. You just to have logically think it all the way through. And not say, that will never happen.

Because it always does.