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 on the media: They are terrified of Ted Cruz

September 26, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Glenn began the radio this show this morning in a bit of a bad mood. Since Senator Ted Cruz wrapped up his marathon anti-Obamacare speech yesterday around noon after 21 hours, the media wasted no time mocking the Senator. Considering how recently the media lionized Democratic Texas State Legislator Wendy Davis in the wake of her 11-hour filibuster against stricter abortion laws, Glenn found himself especially frustrated.

“Here's my problem. My problem is I have no problem living in a world where we all have different opinions. I have no problem coexisting with people. I have no problem if I can't convince you to come my way. I have no problem with your religion, I have no problem with whom you voted for,” Glenn said. “But there is something called the freedom of conscience. And what I believe is what I believe. What you believe is what you believe. And that's good. That's really good. That's what makes the world go around. Here's what I can't take anymore. I can't take people who won't treat people and conditions the same.”

Consistency of opinion is an admirable trait in any person, but it should be seen as a necessary trait for the media. In theory, it is the job of the media to present both sides of a situation and let the audience decide. Or, in the case of cable news, be up front about the angle you are taking. But the media coverage of Sen. Cruz has proven that such a standard simply does not exist in the American media today.

“Now [Wendy Davis is] a woman who stood up for what she believed in and she made a cogent case. I disagree with her, but she made a cogent case and people heard her. And all of the newspapers reported it,” Glenn said. “Ted Cruz gets up and he makes a cogent case for 20 hours and nobody reports on what he's really saying. They make it all into Green Eggs and Ham – like all he did for 20 hours was talk about Green Eggs and Ham, that all he did was talk about White Castle.”

One of the more egregious offenders was CNN.

“They led it off with a montage of all the silly moments from the 21 hours,” Stu explained. “So him saying White Castle, him saying Green Eggs and Ham, him talking about Duck Dynasty, those sorts of moments, but no meat, none of the actual arguments he made at all… Then you have, after the montage of the silly moments, you have Harry Reid coming out right after that and saying, ‘Well, what we saw here was a complete waste of time.’”

Considering the latest poll numbers show more than 50% of Americans are unhappy with Obamacare, Sen. Reid’s comments that this was all a charade and a big waste of time is ignorant.

“What he said, you may not think so if you disagree with him, you may not want to admit that that was so uniting. You may not like the fact that what he said was cogent. But you cannot deny it in your heart of hearts. Truth is truth and you cannot deny that what he said was at least a reasonable opinion that you disagree with,” Glenn said. “See, that's the thing I can't take. That's why I'm in a mood today. Because they went into Harry Reid saying it was a waste of time. And that even wasn't good enough. Then the next report was?”

“Was John McCain criticizing Ted Cruz over the fact that he used Neville Chamberlain, he cited Neville Chamberlain in the context of saying, ‘Well, look, you've got to stand up for what you believe. Neville Chamberlain told that story to say, okay, look, you've got to stand up for what you believe, even if it's not popular. You can't just fold,’” Stu said in reference to CNN’s coverage. “And because of that, John McCain gave a lecture about how he had relatives who were in World War II and it was offensive to mention Neville Chamberlain… Then they went to Bill Clinton, who informed everyone that he used to be able to work with Newt Gingrich, but you just can't work with someone like Ted Cruz.”

So the problem Glenn sees here, again, is consistency.

“So my problem today, and here's where we begin, is consistency. And all of my friends and all of my neighbors that I truly and dearly love that disagree with me politically – you don't even know when you're being lied to. You don't even know when you're being lied to because you'll read your HuffPo, you'll watch CNN, but you won't even recognize what you're not hearing. You don't know what you don't know,” Glenn said. “Because while we hear about the people, the last two people: Bernie Sanders that did this ‘great filibuster,’ Bernie Sanders was a ‘bad‑ass’ when he did it. This woman in Texas when she did it – she was ‘remarkable,’ a ‘woman of the century.’ And we had to listen to what they had to say. And you know what? That's good. We don't silence others.”

“In the perfect Saul Alinsky world, all you do is isolate people. All you do is take their words out of context and you isolate them, and you make them to look foolish and dangerous. And then you destroy them. And then you move on to the next one. And that's exactly what's happening in Washington,” he continued. “How many people today think that Ted Cruz is something that he is not? How many people have listened to Ted Cruz's father? How many people know Ted Cruz's heart? How many people know what he even said, besides Green Eggs and Ham?”

If the media reported what actually happened during Sen. Cruz’s speech – the well-articulated points he made, the questions he raised, the truths about healthcare he exposed – people might start to realize that this guy isn’t so crazy. He is actually a high intelligent, Ivy League educated attorney, who cares about his country and represents a good portion of the American people.

“Of course you think he's a dangerous man. Because the press continues to do what the press does best: Smear, distort, and lie. They are terrified about Ted Cruz. Terrified. You don't spend this much time tearing somebody down. You ignore them. They are terrified because they saw, as anybody who actually watched it, anybody who actually listened to him, they saw exactly how smart he is, how stable he is, how cogent he is, how together he is even after 20 hours,” Glenn said. “And I fear some of our friends in the Republican Party are deciding ‘I don't want to be destroyed, so I'm going to go stand over here with the other people because he'll destroy himself and then I get a chance.’ No. No, make no mistake, guys. After they finish with him, they will come for you. If you don't stand together, there ain't gonna be anything left.”

Front page image courtesy of the AP

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

Glenn unveils CIA’s grim Dire Wolf conspiracy

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Trump’s Liberation day unveiled: 3 shocking takeaways you need to know

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.