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

Glenn predicted Petraeus dismissal 2 weeks ago

November 12, 2012
Wilson

Writer

General David Petraeus resigned amid scandal last week after admitting he had cheated on his wife of 38 years with a woman 20 years his younger. Interesting timing, considering Petraeus was set to testify in the Benghazi investigation and will most likely no longer take part. Why now? And why was the man once hated by the left (‘betray-us’) there in the first place?

"This all makes sense if you ‑‑ if you think like a revolutionary. Go back to where General Petraeus was when Barack Obama got into office. Do you remember? There were rumors that he was going to run," Glenn said. "We were all looking for a hero to ride in a white horse and this guy had credibility. Everybody, everybody liked General Petraeus. And remember what the left was saying. This is why this was so important. If you remember what the left was saying at the time, the left was saying that General Petraeus was General Betray Us. He was moveon.org's chief target. The left hated General Petraeus. Why? Because he was good at what he did. He was effective."

"So Obama comes in and he puts him and sends him back to Afghanistan. And I remember doing the show at the time saying, 'Don't do it, General Petraeus, don't do it.' But the guy stood up and he did the right thing. And I was saying, 'Don't do it because they're trying to take you out. They're trying to put you in a situation to where you're removed from the line of sight here in America. And they'll destroy you in the end.'"

"So he goes over and that's when he starts to have an affair with this Broadwell woman."

"Then the president of the United States takes Leon Panetta who hates the Pentagon and instead of putting General Petraeus in charge of the Pentagon, he moves the guy who has always been for defunding the military and doesn't have military background, he puts the guy who was at the CIA in charge of the Pentagon and takes the logical choice of the Pentagon (Petraeus) and puts him in the CIA."

"Now why would you do that? Why would you do that? That doesn't make any sense," Glenn continued.

It's been reported that James Clapper and the FBI knew of the affair before Petraeus was put in charge of the CIA.

"So the administration knew that the guy they were going to put in charge of the CIA was having an affair. That doesn't sound smart to me. That doesn't sound ‑‑ that doesn't sound wise in any stretch of the imagination. But they did it. And they put him in charge of the CIA."

"Now, when Leon Panetta was at the CIA, you never heard about these intelligence problems: 'Well, it was a lack of intelligence. Well, it was bad intelligence.' You never heard that. Because if you did hear that, wouldn't that be interesting. That you would take somebody who was having all of these problems with the intelligence, 'Well, there's a problem with the intelligence, there's a problem with this, there's a problem with that,' and then move him over to run the Pentagon. That would be irresponsible, wouldn't it?

"So our problems with intelligence all start to pop up you when General Petraeus, the guy America trusts, the guy they know is having an affair, all of a sudden there's these bad intelligence problems. Hmmm."

"And then we get to the Benghazi situation where everybody was saying intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. And I'm up in my office after the show two weeks ago and I say to myself, 'Something's wrong. Something's wrong.' I come down to the studio, two weeks ago, and I say this: Watch for Petraeus to take the blame. As I've been thinking about this and I've been thinking where's Petraeus? Petraeus is the guy who's been set up as the ‑‑ he's the intelligence guy now. He's the head of the CIA. Everybody trusts Petraeus. Remember when they moved him over there and they were like, why is he doing that? They're getting him out of the way. Put this all together. Who have they tried to sell down the river every step of the way, the intelligence? Sloppy intelligence, didn't know, didn't know, didn't know, everything. You watch: Petraeus is going to be the fall guy. They're going to have him step down. They're going to point all fingers to him. You watch. He goes to Princeton. I think he goes to Princeton."

"Two weeks ago they were talking about Petraeus was considering leaving, stepping down and going to Princeton and running Princeton. And I thought to myself, Wait a minute. General Petraeus, General Betrayus, that guy, going to run the university where Van Jones is a professor. Where Peter Singer is a professor. Isn't Cornel West also a professor at Princeton? Is it Princeton?"

"The dumping ground for the Center for American Progress, Van Jones' university he's going to go run? I'm sorry, the university that has the Woodrow Wilson Center for Politics? Really? You're going to go run that? They're going to embrace him? He's going to run that? Wow, is that a wild ‑‑ that's a wild turn of events, isn't it? How'd that one come about? Who wanted to get him? Who's been campaigning for him to have that? How'd that one happen? That one happened, I'm convinced, because somebody said, 'General, General, General, look at ‑‑ you can leave right now and keep your career,' knowing that a man like that will say, 'At least I can shape young minds. I may have made mistakes or I may have done this or whatever, whatever they got on me, I can leave and I can leave with some honor and dignity and I can go shape minds.' And he'll say in himself, 'It's better than having no credibility. At least I can go and I can make an impact' because somebody like General Petraeus would know one of the problems with our country is... education."

" So one of our problems is education. "I can go in and do it." Now maybe General Petraeus is like Colin Powell. I don't know. Maybe he's a big progressive. I have no idea. But I will tell you this: We ‑‑ this was a CIA safe house. We were at least running guns. I'm beginning to think it's much, much, much worse. But we're at least running guns in that safe house."

"General Petraeus knows it, knows everything about it. He's got all the information. The week before he testifies, this comes out? The president knew; they held it. They held it. This is what the mob does, gang. You've got to look at our president and this administration as Al Capone because that's what you've got. This is what they do. They hold the information, 'General, you're not going to say anything.' I don't think this general can sleep at night. And here's why he probably won't say anything: Because he has two children."

Glenn said that the other piece of information that has been released is a reference to sex under a desk.

"That's a warning shot," Glenn said. Glenn believes that the White House has more information that could be even more embarrassing for his family and that they will release it if he doesn't keep quiet about Libya.

"I don't think he's going to say anything. If he is the man we thought he was, he will. And his children will suffer for it."

"This is why I've said to you have got to have your closets clean. They will destroy you. If there's anything you're doing, they will use it against you and they will destroy you. Period. Have your closets clean. Otherwise your family will be on the frontline and your family will be destroyed as well. As his family will. He has to make the choice. I believe he's going to Princeton. Congratulations on another lucky Obama winner."

Later in the show, Glenn explained that this incident also serves to discredit the military, something that Glenn believes is necessary to destabilize a country.

"So if you're trying to take over the United States and have a revolution, how do ‑‑ what do you need? You have to have the media. Well, you got that one. Have to have the education system. You got that one. Have to have the government, have to have leaders in top of the government. You got that. And you have to have the military," Glenn explained.

"Let me tell you something: What's happening right now, Petraeus' story is not over. Petraeus is going to lose more and more credibility."

"The media loves a good sex story - unless it's about a liberal and then it's their private business. But if it's about a conservative and if it's about a military hero, they love a good sex story. So the media will run with this until there is just no more running with it. And they will destroy," he said. "Right now you think of General Petraeus with all of those ribbons on. Soon all you will think of him is a guy who was doing something nasty underneath his desk. And no one will listen to him."

"General Petraeus, you have one option: You go nuclear right now, my friend. That is your only option: Mutually assured destruction. And they don't mind it. They don't mind it. They will push every damn button."

"Somebody better stand up."

4 ways Biden is SABOTAGING Trump on his way out of office

ROBERTO SCHMIDT / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden has less than a week left in the White House, but that doesn't mean he's down for the count quite yet.

Next Monday, January 20th, President-elect Trump will be officially sworn into office, marking the beginning of his second term. But after such a bitter and contentious election, the Democrats aren't ready to roll over. Instead, they have been working around the clock to ensure that Trump will face as many obstacles and challenges as possible the minute he is sworn in. These political landmines are designed to sabotage his presidency—at the cost of the well-being of the American people.

Biden's job approval rating currently sits around 38.7 percent, one of the lowest approval ratings of any president, he has nothing to lose from these reckless ploys. Here are four ways Biden and the Left are trying to sabotage Trump:

Pardoning criminals

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

In November, President Biden customarily pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey ... along with his son Hunter and dozens of other controversial criminals, including 37 felons on death row. Hunter's 11-year-long blanket immunity sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents, and we may never know the full extent of the Biden family's crimes and corruption.

Destroying U.S. energy

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

Biden has made several moves that have damaged America's ability to produce its energy independently, including canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on his first day in office. Earlier this month, Biden signed another order that has dire consequences for the energy sector, effectively blocking any new drilling off the U.S. coast indefinitely. This not only further kneecaps the U.S. oil industry during a time when gas and energy prices are on the rise, but moreover, the way the executive order was written means Trump will have a much harder time undoing it. Thanks, Biden.

Escalating overseas wars

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

America's involvement with the ongoing war in Ukraine has been tenuous from the beginning, but under Biden, it has escalated to a Cold War-like proxy war. Neither pleas from Americans in need nor threats from Russia have deterred Biden. He has approved countless aid packages sent to Ukraine, totaling billions of dollars. Recently, Biden has decided to up the ante by supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles, despite Putin's warnings that Russia would consider this an act of war. It's almost like Biden wants to start WWIII before handing the reigns over to Trump.

Installing a "shadow cabinet"

For years Glenn has warned of the dangers of the deep state, and its very existence has been denied ... until recently. Shortly after the election Democratic Rep. Wiley Nickel made a disturbing speech on the House floor where he proposed the creation of a "Shadow Cabinet" designed to hamper the Trump administration and to step in if Trump were removed from office. This "Shadow Cabinet" would be composed of Democrat counter-picks to Trump presidential cabinet members, and they would scrutinize every act made by the Trump administration and propose alternative actions. This just proves that the deep state will do anything to stop President Trump.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

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

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

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

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.