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

Santorum calls in ... to yell at Glenn?

March 23, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Ok perhaps it wasn’t yelling, but Santorum did call in after hearing Glenn comment on the latest in the Santorm campaign saga which Drudge referred to as ‘Santorum snaps’. Was it an angry rant? Was it a controversial remark? Or one he’s made many times over? Check out the impromptu call in in the clip above.

Rush Transcript of interview below:

GLENN: The headline on Drudge is Santorum Snaps. I thought he sounded sleepy

PAT: Yeah. He didn't sound ‑‑ yeah

GLENN: Santorum snaps. Obama preferable to Romney. Rick Santorum is with us now. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning.

GLENN: How are you, sir?

SANTORUM: I'm doing great. I'm ready for Louisiana.

GLENN: Have you come down off of your tantrum apparently that ‑‑

SANTORUM: There was no tantrum there. All I was saying was what I've been saying a hundred times. If we have a choice between Twiddle Dumb and Twiddle Dee that the American public is not going to support out nominee. We need a stark contrast. That's all I was saying. I've said repeatedly, as you've heard me said on this program, I would vote for Rick for Republican, I would vote for Ron Paul, I would whoever the Republican nominee is. The point is whether voters will vote for someone who doesn't have a clear contrasting vision for this country.

PAT: Yes.

SANTORUM: And that's the point I was making in that speech. I've made it in every speech I've been given and I'll continue to make that point and governor ‑‑ you know, it's funny. I didn't get one question on that afterward.

GLENN: But hang on. It's not just ‑‑ it's not just the Republican thing. It is ‑‑ there is a difference between ‑‑ I mean, Mitt Romney has ‑‑ is not now and never has been a member of the communist party. (Laughter.)

SANTORUM: Okay. You're right.

PAT: Okay.

SANTORUM: All right. Sorry. Look. What I'm talking about are the big issues of the day which is, you now, Obamacare, cap and trade, the bailouts, government control of people's lives and this is a guy who, you know, who, in my opinion, and if you saw this ‑‑ it was his Etch‑A‑Sketch comment. He'll say whatever he needs to say in front of whatever group he needs to say it in front of to win the election and that's not going to win this election. I mean, you know, pandering to voters and saying what people want to hear is not going to win. What people want is someone they can trust, someone who knows that, you know, that they want to, as I said the other night, tear Washington bureaucracy out by its roots and do some big changes in Washington and that's the kind of contrasting vision we need and that's not what we're getting in the Romney campaign. We get this parsing position that we see on all these positions.

GLENN: Now, let me take this a piece at a time. First of all, on the Etch‑A‑Sketch thing, we're split here in the studio. I think that Romney strikes me as an Etch‑A‑Sketch guy. I mean, I have ‑‑ let me just give you the quote here from Romney. You know, he came out Monday and said, you know, this gas hike trio, the three that are on a mission to drive up the price of gas, lean on energy so they can finally get their solar and their wind and more price competitive, that's what they want to do and then he claimed that people are trying to drive up the price of energy which is absolutely accurate. However ‑‑

SANTORUM: Yeah

GLENN: He said in 2006, I don't think now is the time and I'm not sure there's going to be a right time for us to encourage the use of more gasoline. I'm very much in favor of people recognizing that high gas prices just probably here to stay. So, if that's not Etch‑A‑Sketch, how do I know what he really believes?

SANTORUM: That's the point I was trying to make and I probably didn't say it as articulately as I needed to say it, but I've been saying it repeated ed, that we need someone who you can trust, someone who provides a contrast, not someone who is just ‑‑ I would make the argument he is better on some issues about Barack Obama. There's no question about it but on the big issues of the day, you know, of government, you know, control and crushing our economy and our energy, he has just been wrong so much that it makes ‑‑ it makes it ‑‑ it makes it a hard ‑‑ much harder election than it needs to be.

GLENN: Okay. Let me ask you this: Jim DeMint came out yesterday and said he's excited, excited about the idea of Romney being the candidate

PAT: He's the first person ‑‑ he's the first American known who have said excited and Mitt Romney in the same sentence. That's the first time that's happened in a country of over 300 million people and now we're putting him in the Guinness Book of World Records and ‑‑

GLENN: And that's a pretty big piece. He's ‑‑ I mean, here's a guy who the Tea Party ‑‑ I mean, what happened there?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Was he excited when Mitt Romney went down to Puerto Rico after I said that Puerto Ricans have to learn English in order to be a member of the ‑‑ be admitted to statehood, since only 15% of Puerto Ricans speak English and Mitt Romney who believes that English should be the official language of our country and is against bilingual education went to Puerto Rico and in order to get 20 delegates said he would admit Puerto Rico into the union even if nobody spoke English?

PAT: Wow.

SANTORUM: This is the problem. That's what he said. He said, no, there's no English language for the people of Puerto Rico in order for him to support statehood. Now, how can you ‑‑

PAT: That got very little coverage. That got very little coverage.

GLENN: It will get coverage.

SANTORUM: It got huge coverage in Puerto Rico and the reason he got 80% of the vote is I stood up and said what was the truth which is there's no way that any state is going to be admitted to the union if people don't speak the language of the country and that's not that they don't ‑‑ they can't speak another language but they've got to be able to speak English.

GLENN: Yeah, but you had your shirt off by a pool.

SANTORUM: Wait a minute. (Laughter.)

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: 15 minutes I laid on that. 15 minutes.

PAT: You can't do that.

GLENN: Can I tell you something? I saw that photo ‑‑ I saw that photo because, honestly, I went to ‑‑ for Christmas I went to Hawaii with my family. I did not go ‑‑ we stayed right at a hotel right there at the beach and I did not go to the beach without my shirt on ever because I knew ‑‑

STU: The people there thank you for that, by the way.

GLENN: No, no, no. I know what I look like without a shirt on and I saw that picture of you ‑‑ I saw that picture of you and I thought, oh, that's unfortunate. That's just ‑‑

SANTORUM: Yeah, it was.

PAT: It wasn't that bad.

SANTORUM: I'm worried about the gastric distress I might have caused people with that photo.

GLENN: All right. So, let me share something with you that I haven't even shared with the guys here. In the last three weeks, a very, very prominent person approached me, mainly because he certainly doesn't know me if he approached me with this and he said, Glenn, you could be the guy that could be the turning point in this election and you could really help, you know, pick the next President if you could just convince Rick Santorum to drop out because you and I know it's time for him to drop out and just convince him to drop out and I said, A, I think you're ‑‑ I think you're overestimating my Jedi mind trick and, also, I believe in divine providence. Right. I believe in divine providence. I believe that if it's supposed to happen and we're living our lives the way we're supposed to, it will happen, but convince the average person that, you know ‑‑ and don't bring in Newt Gingrich because I love the way nobody's saying this about Newt Gingrich. Just you. Convince the people that this is the right thing to do, for you to stay in and not start to unify the country behind one candidate.

SANTORUM: The best thing we can do right now is to nominate a conservative against Barack Obama. That's what we need to do. That's the best chance for us to win the election, No. 1. No. 2, the ‑‑

GLENN: Wait, wait. Explain that for anybody ‑‑ hang on just a second. Explain that again why you say that for anybody who just doesn't understand that.

SANTORUM: Well, one time in the last 100 years a Republican has defeated a Democratic incumbent, once, and most of the time when we've run against Democratic incumbents, we tried to run moderates because we had to win and, of course, we've only one won once, Ronald Reagan, when we provided that clear contrast and that's what we need in this election. You can't win this election unless you get your base and the people of our party, like in 2010, excited about who the nominee is and that the people who are in the middle, if you will, are ‑‑ can share that excitement and like the person they're voting for and relative to the person they're voting for. That's what happened with Reagan. He had a clear vision. He had someone who was out there who was ‑‑ they had trust in, that they could relate to and that's, you know ‑‑ unfortunately, you know, you look at Governor Romney and he's having troubles on all those fronts and Governor Romney ‑‑

GLENN: Excuse me. I have a lot of ‑‑

SANTORUM: Because he's overwhelmingly spending whoever he's running against. That's not going to happen in the general election

GLENN: You know, you can't say you can't relate to him. I'll have you know I have many friends who have $50 million houses who enjoy him he very much. (Laughter.) I have friends who own cars and car dealership and car companies and race teams that relate to him a great deal.

STU: It's one of those things where I feel like these cries of unify feel to me ‑‑ and let me know if you agree with this, Rick. Does it feel to you the same way as right now we're saying unify but it's unify around one. In 2008 the country said change but change to what? You can't just rally around the verb. You've got to ‑‑

PAT: And forget that the election in 2008 between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went down to, what, June?

GLENN: June.

PAT: It was June and nasty and they were tearing each other up and they won

GLENN: And they were saying the same thing.

PAT: And they won and they were saying the exact same thing. So, tell people to shut up.

GLENN: The Drudge will report that as him snapping.

SANTORUM: We have to realize the shorter the race is, the better it is for the Republican party. Why? Because Obama's going to have the media and a huge money advantage and he will not be able to unleash that money advantage or the media on the nominee unless ‑‑ until we have a nominee and once we ‑‑ once a nominee is, quote, decided and if it's decided early, then Barack Obama has literally hundreds of millions of dollars he can start just pounding away at the Republican candidate and that Republican candidate is going to be shooting back with a pea shooter. We wait until the fall to have a nominee and we'll have all of our forces and all of their forces. Yeah, they'll be able to outspend us, but will be diminishing returns after awhile. There will be so much money concentrated in such a short period of time, in a sense, their money advantage is negated, their media advantage is negated. We want this election. We want this election to be short. We want it to be two months. We want it to be focused instead of a drawn out process where they can just destroy the Republican nominee over the course of the next five months.

STU: But, really, do you think you can do better than Joe Biden as a VP if you were to win?

SANTORUM: You know, I seem to do worse.

GLENN: (Laughter.)

PAT: No. I don't think he can.

GLENN: I wanted to really put some thought into that, but, no, I don't think you can. Thank you very much, Rick. Best of luck to you this weekend.

SANTORUM: Yes.

PAT: Going to win Louisiana tomorrow.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. You could help him do that by going to RickSantorum.com.

STU: Do you have to end every interview by giving his website?

GLENN: This is the worst. This is the worst.

PAT: Somebody has to. He didn't do it. So ‑‑

STU: It's true. He's not shilling for himself enough apparently

GLENN: It really bothered me when this individual came to me and said, you know, you do that. Isn't that the kind of stuff that we hate? Isn't that the kind of stuff that is bad, the back room deals?

STU: It does happen. Everybody knows that, but I feel like, A, it's someone who doesn't know you well enough to know that you would never do that and it also is someone who doesn't know Rick Santorum well enough because he's not going to listen to you or anybody else

GLENN: No.

STU: He's going to stay in the race as long as he feels like it's the right thing to do

GLENN: That's one reason I like him, because he did go down to court Puerto Rico and he did say that because it's consistent, that's what he believes, and so he said it. Even though it cost him the race, that's what he did.

STU: Yeah. You know, this is what sucks about primaries, because I like Mitt Romney. He seems like a nice guy. I think he's really smart. I think he does a lot of good thing. I like Rick Santorum. It's like everyone just gets in these fights where it's just constant everyone going back and forth.

GLENN: We're really not enemies.

STU: Not at all

GLENN: Although I think we've created some which is not necessarily ‑‑ but you know what? Rick can't be the President because we like him and there's just no way that we could have a President that actually likes us.

PAT: Now we're setting a new precedent here. This is a brand new precedent we're sitting

GLENN: We were at the airport yesterday and we were talking about the race and I just looked and Pat said, Romney will hate us by the time he would get into office. So, you know he's got to be the guy. He's just going to hate us with by that time.

How Trump is WINNING at the Panama Canal

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite the doubts of the nay-sayers, Trump's Panamanian plans have already borne fruit.

Shortly before his inauguration, President Trump drew national attention to the Panama Canal. He reminded Americans of just how important the canal is for the U.S. and highlighted the Chinese influence that has been slowly taking control of the vital passage ever since America handed it over to Panama.

President Trump was immediately mocked and ridiculed by the Left, who called him delusional and an imperialist. However, earlier this week, Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made a trip to Panama and spoke with the Panamanian President, José Raúl Mulino, and Rubio made some serious headway. As Glenn has explained, Trump's boisterous talk is part of his strategy. Invading Panama was never the goal, just one of several options to get what America needed, and after Rubio's visit, it seems like America's needs will be met.

Here are the TOP THREE takeaways from Marco Rubio's visit to Panama:

1. Marco Rubio makes headway

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

On February 2nd, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha and President José Raúl Mulino where they discussed critical regional and global challenges, including the canal. Rubio drew attention to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal in which the U.S. promised Panama ownership of the canal on the condition of its guaranteed neutrality. Rubio argued that China's growing influence qualified as a breach of the treaty and that it gives the U.S. the power to take necessary measures to rectify the faults, given Panama doesn't act. As of this week, reports say Panama agreed and promised to take immediate action to purge Chinese influence from canal operations.

2. Panama is ditching China's Belt Road

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

After his meeting with Rubio, Panamanian President Mulino agreed that Panama would step away from China's "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI). The BRI is a Chinese effort to establish China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. In 2017, Panama signed on to this initiative, and China's influence in the small nation has exponentially grown. However, after Rubio's visit, President Mulino has not only stated that Panama will not renew its agreement with China, but moreover, the country will also look for ways to back out of the agreement early. This is a massive win for the Trump Administration and the American people.

3. The Chinese may lose their ports on the canal

MARTIN BERNETTI / Contributor | Getty Images

Shortly after Rubio left Panama City, two lawyers spearheaded the effort to kick out a Chinese company that controls two major ports on the Panama Canal. The Chinese company—CK Hutchison Holdings—has operated one port on both ends of the canal since 1997, which could potentially give China a massive degree of control over traffic. After analyzing the contract, the Panamanian lawyers argue that the contract is potentially in violation of the Panamanian constitution and should be revoked. It is unclear if the constitutional issues relate to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, but even on its own merit, this is a huge victory for America.

Top 15 jobs AI is TAKING OVER

CFOTO / Contributor, VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

The AI takeover has begun.

Last week, Glenn delved into the World Economic Forum's 2025 summit in Davos, where our malevolent overlords focused especially on AI and how it can replace millions of workers worldwide. We are at the precipice of a monumental change in how the world is run—WEF founder Klaus Schwab called it "The Fourth Industrial Revolution"—and in time, AI will augment every one of our lives.

Already, AI is taking jobs. Thousands, if not millions, of tasks are slowly being delegated to it. The affected fields are largely data entry, admin tasks, and clerical work, along with graphic design and some customer support roles. However, as AI becomes more sophisticated, the scope of its abilities will only grow. The WEF is all for it, and last month they released a shocking chart

that revealed what jobs were already feeling the pain. Check out the top 15 jobs that are already disappearing:

1. Postal service clerks

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

2. Bank tellers

JOHANNES EISELE / Staff | Getty Images

3. Data entry clerks

AFP / Staff | Getty Images

4. Cashiers and ticket clerks

Andreas Rentz / Staff | Getty Images

5. Administrative assistants and executive secretaries

6. Printing workers

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

7. Accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll clerks

8. Material-recording and stock-keeping clerks

9. Transportation attendants and conductors

10. Door-to-door salesmen

11. Graphic designers

12. Claims adjusters, examiners and investigators

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

13. Legal officials

14. Legal secretaries

15. Telemarketers

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

3 stories that prove USAID is a criminal organization

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency has one mission—to eliminate government waste—and it's starting with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID is a federal agency that, on paper, is responsible for distributing foreign aid to conflict-ridden zones across the world. However, for years, Glenn has revealed that the USAID acts more like a second CIA, but without the regulation or oversight under the State Department. Elon Musk concurred, describing the federal agency as not merely "an apple with a worm in it" but rather "just a ball of worms."

Don't fall for the left's narrative calling USAID a "humanitarian" organization. Here are the top three stories that reveal just how corrupt the USAID really is:

1. USAID has funded terrorist organizations and Osama bin Laden

Ahmad Khateib / Stringer | Getty Images

In 2023, USAID provided "assistance" to nearly 130 countries, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria (which is currently run by a terrorist that received aid from the Obama-era CIA). Under Obama, USAID gave funds to an organization known as the Islamic Relief Agency (ISRA), which was known at the time to help finance Jihadist groups and had been labeled by the U.S. Treasury Department as a "terror-financing organization."

The ISRA also funded and gave shelter to the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden—U.S. taxpayer dollars sent straight to the perpetrator of the deadliest terrorist attack in history and the most lethal attack on U.S. soil.

2. USAID "loses" funds that happen to end up in individuals' pockets

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) revealed that in 2016, Chemonics International colluded with a USAID subcontractor to massively overcharge a USAID project to pocket extra funds from the project's bottom line. Moreover, the USAID project used "self-reported" performance metrics, which made it impossible to verify the actual progress of the project and how the funds were being used.

Even the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic has USAID's sticky fingerprints all over it. In 2014, USAID provided $38 million to an EcoHealth Alliance project called "Predict-2." One of the subcontractors, Ben Hu, headed the Wuhan Institute of Virology's gain-of-function research and was one of the first three people infected with COVID-19 in late 2019. That means U.S. taxpayer dollars were likely used to fund the very research that gave rise to the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. USAID operates as a second "CIA" with no accountability

Andrew Burton / Staff | Getty Images

The CIA isn't the only agency that meddles in the political inner workings of foreign powers. USAID has conducted similar operations since the 1950s. USAID notoriously sowed dissent in Cuba to grow U.S. influence, and they even taught South American police forces Nazi torture methods. In the late 1990s, 300,000 Peruvian women were forcibly sterilized in a "poverty reduction strategy" that received $35 million in funding from USAID.

More recently, USAID's foreign influence has grown significantly under former Obama adviser, Samantha Power, called USAID America's "soft power arsenal." Under her leadership, the organization meddled in the political affairs of several nations, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, and, Bolivia. Several domestic, left-leaning influence groups, such as the Tides Center, received several grants and aid.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.