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."

Drone mystery exposes GLARING government incompetence

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

The drone issue is getting way out of hand.

Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.

It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:

Iranian Mothership and Missing Nuclear Warheads

- / Stringer | Getty Images

After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.

Pentagon's Limp Wristed Response

Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images

In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.

This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?

The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.

Where's Pete Buttigieg?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.

Glenn: How Alvin Bragg turned hero Daniel Penny into a villain

Michael M. Santiago / Staff | Getty Images

We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty.

America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.

This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare.

Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.

In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.

Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.

In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.

A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.

The system failed Jordan Neely

It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.

This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.

It’s time to demand change

The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.

If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.

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

CEO Brian Thompson's killer reveals COWARDICE of the far-left death cult

Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Early on the chilly morning of Wednesday, December 4th, Brian Thompson, CEO of health insurance giant, UnitedHealthcare, was walking through Midtown Manhattan on his way to a company conference. Suddenly, a masked and hooded figure silently allegedly stepped onto the sidewalk behind Thompson, drew a 3-D printed, silenced pistol, and without warning fired multiple shots into Thompson's back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. After a multiple-day manhunt, a 26-year-old lead suspect was arrested at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania after being recognized by an employee.

This was not "vigilante justice." This was cold-blooded murder.

As horrific as the murder of a husband and father in broad daylight in the center of New York City is, the story only gets worse. Even before the murder suspect was arrested, left-wing extremists were already taking to X to call him a "hero" and a "vigilante" who "took matters into his own hands." Even the mainstream media joined in on the glorification, as Glenn pointed out on air recently, going out of the way to show how physically attractive the murder suspect was. This wave of revolting and nihilistic fanfare came in response to the findings of online investigators who surmised the murder suspect's motives to retaliate against healthcare companies for corruption and denied coverage. The murder suspect supposedly underwent a major back surgery that left him with back pain, and some of his internet fans apparently viewed his murder of Thompson as retribution for the mistreatment that he and many other Americans have suffered from healthcare companies.

The murder suspect and his lackeys don't seem to understand that, other than depriving two children of their father right before Christmas, he accomplished nothing.

The murder suspect failed to achieve his goal because he was too cowardly to try.

If the murder suspect's goals were truly to "right the wrongs" of the U.S. healthcare system, he had every tool available to him to do so in a constructive and meaningful manner. He came from a wealthy and prominent family in the Baltimore area, became the valedictorian at a prestigious all-boys prep school, and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a master's in engineering. Clearly, the murder suspect was intelligent and capable, and if he had put his talent into creating solutions for the healthcare industry, who knows what he could have accomplished?

This is the kind of behavior the far-left idolizes, like communists on college campuses who wear shirts that celebrate the brutal Cuban warlord, Che Guevara. Merchandise celebrating the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder suspect is already available, including shirts, hoodies, mugs, and even Christmas ornaments. Will they be sporting his face on their T-shirts too?

This macabre behavior does not breed creation, achievement, success, or life. It only brings death and risks more Americans falling into this dangerous paradigm. But we still have a chance to choose life. We just have to wake up and take it.

Is Trump repealing the 14th Amendment? Here's the truth.

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Trump really promise to put an end to the 14th Amendment, or is this just another mainstream spin?

This past weekend, President-elect Donald Trump sat down on NBC's "Meet the Press" for his first interview since the election. As one might expect, it was a particularly hostile interview, but Trump handled it with grace. The biggest takeaway from the interview was when the interviewer, Kristen Welker, pressed Trump on his immigration plans, specifically his plans to end birthright citizenship.

Despite Walker's claim that the 14th Amendment protected birthright citizenship, Trump defended his stance with the backing of legal scholars, who argue that birthright citizenship has to be granted within the proper "jurisdictional scope." As Glenn reiterated on his show this week, the 14th Amendment was enacted in the context of slavery "not illegal immigration. The 14th Amendment doesn't say, "Come over here, get into a hospital, have a baby, and congratulations, everybody is a citizen."

The media still pushed the narrative that Trump is trying to overstep the 14th Amendment.

But what is the truth? What is birthright citizenship, and what does the 14th Amendment actually say about it? Here is everything you need to know about the "birthright citizenship debacle" below:

The media outrage

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

If you have glanced through any mainstream media articles, they would convince you that Trump will repeal the 14th Amendment altogether and catapult the country back 200 years before slavery was abolished when Congress passed the Constitutional Amendment. But how do these accusations stack up to reality?

What the 14th amendment actually says

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

To get to the bottom of this, we have to understand what the 14th Amendment actually says and the context in which it was created.

During Trump's NBC interview, Welker "quoted" the 14th Amendment as "all persons born in the United States are citizens," but anyone who took a government class in high school can tell you that is wrong. The actual14th Amendment says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Notice that Welker conveniently left out "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This was no simple oversight.

First, let's define what birthright citizenship actually is and how it relates to the 14th Amendment. Birthright citizenship is an interpretation of the previously quoted section of the 14th Amendment: that by simply being born on U.S. soil, you are automatically granted U.S. citizenship. This has been the historic interpretation of the amendment. However, the border crisis has been incentivized by an abuse of birthright citizenship, which is colloquially called "anchor babies." This refers to when a pregnant woman crosses the border, gives birth, and is granted residency since her child is automatically given U.S. citizenship.

However, Trump says the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could enable the federal government to crack down on this abuse of birthright citizenship. If a person is here illegally, then they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore, their child would not be given automatic citizenship. This would not apply to legal immigrants who have secured citizenship, despite any claims to the contrary.

What Trump actually said

NBC / Contributor | Getty Images

When questioned about the constitutionality of ending birthright citizenship and the possibility of using executive orders to get around the 14th Amendment, Trump's first suggestion was to pose a potential amendment to the 14th Amendment as a national vote. When Welker pushed back, Trump stressed the importance of ending birthright citizenship and conceded that, if necessary, he would use an executive order.

As usual, the mainstream media has spun a mountain out of a molehill and blown the entire issue out of proportion. They have spun Trump's reasonable and legal proposition into a dictatorial decree that would send the country back 200 years.