Glenn: This is probably the hardest thing I have ever asked of you

June 23, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

Glenn and TheBlaze have been covering the growing crisis at the southern border for a number of weeks now. With the situation further deteriorating, Glenn came before his audience on Monday morning with an interesting ask. In fact, Glenn described what he was about to say as “the hardest thing” he has ever asked for. But as he shared troubling new information about the humanitarian crisis at the border, Glenn asked his listeners to consider donating to Mercury One.

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

I'm not going to tell you who is giving me this information because things down at the border are extraordinarily difficult and not what you are being told it is. The Administration – and I believe this also includes the progressives Republicans – are trying to keep the lid on the media right now. And the churches are the ones who are pulling people's feet out of the fire. Our state reps now have gone and toured the facilities that are happening in Laredo, Brownsville, Van Horn, McAllen, and all across the border. This one particular facility that I want to talk to you about holds 400 people but currently it has 1,200 kids in it. Some of them are toddlers. 1,200. 400 is what the max capacity is.

Let me ask you: How fast would the federal government or the state shut you down if you had anything that said maximum capacity 400, and you had 1,200 people if there? Three times the amount. Is anybody seeing a problem with this? The federal government is breaking their own laws and they are keeping this information from us.

I am told by people who have toured and work at this facility that when they open the doors to go in, the stench is so bad the politicians that were to go in gagged and backed out. One of the churches is planning on converting their entire church, the largest in the area, to become a holding facility because of how bad things are. Things are so desperate right now, hygiene and food are the number one problem. Clothes are further down the list. They need portable showers and Port-A-Johns. They have no way to wash their clothes. They need food and hygiene care right now. Many of them have not eaten in days. FEMA is supposed to be down there. They are not down there.

The more I get into it, the more angry I get. The more I see and the more I hear from both the Republicans and the Democrats, the more disgusted I am with them. And then we're sitting here in this situation to where we have to ask ourselves: Who are we? What is it we're going to do?

I have come to a place this weekend that I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I believe in the United States of America. And that is my citizenship. But that is my secondary citizenship. The Constitution of the United States of America was God-inspired and man tried to write. It guarantees some basic freedoms for us, and that's why it exists. But that is not where those freedoms come from. Our freedoms come from a higher citizenship. And now we have people who are in need. As I sit and I look at what's happening on the border and then I look at whose border it is, we've never seen a humanitarian crisis like this. We never had refugee camps in America that I know of unless we were the progressives that rounded the Japanese up or the Germans or the Italians. We've not done that. In America, we pride ourselves on the fact that we're the good guys, right?

That's who we are. We pull our wounded enemies off the battlefield and we treat them in our hospitals. We offer medical care to our prisoners – even those who have done the most heinous things, the worst of the worst, we still believe in treating them in humane ways. And it's because it's simple. It is really simple to Americans. And this is what makes us different. We believe humanity is a higher standard on the battlefield. We believe humanity is a higher stand than the rule of law. We believe helping people, being charitable, being good, is what makes us. We have a higher calling.

The same thing goes for our borders. Humanity, our humanness, is a higher standard than immigration. To consider the well-being of others is what makes us human. It's what makes us Americans.

I have to tell you, I am so mad at our politicians right now, I can't take it. I'm to the point now where I'm beyond mad. I beg them, please, please, for everything that is good and decent, secure our borders and fix our immigration policies. Please, don't you see the misery that is being caused all over the country? Please. Can you not hear, can you not smell what's happening on our borders? Please. But I have no faith in Washington anymore.

I still have, thank God, my faith in you. Now we have a choice. We can run down to the borders and secure it ourselves. Let's get our guns. Let's go down there and secure it ourselves. But that doesn't fix the humanitarian crisis. And we have to err on the side of humanity. If we're going to be Americans, a choice has to be made. And we always make the right choice. We really do. As people, we always do. We would rather extend ourselves and see the life of a child protected than err on the side of being silent or still and harm coming to a child while politicians do what politicians do nothing, debate meaningless words. That's what makes them politicians. Acting in a compassionate way is what makes us human. It's what makes us Americans.

I don't know what's going to happen on our border. I don't know what's going to happen with our politicians. I have a feeling I know. And I want no part of it. These people have to be sent home. They have to be sent home. But I can't sleep at night knowing that we know what's going on.

When I got that email, I reached out to Mercury One and asked them, can we send trucks? We just helped with a tornado up in Nebraska. We sent five tractor-trailers within hours. We had five tractor-trailers. This is going to take a lot more than five tractor-trailers. I want to be really clear. I am not for amnesty. I am not for open borders. The policies have to be debated. The laws have to be written. But we can't allow the suffering to happen on our side of the border and know about it.

If you don't want to know about it, you better turn off the radio. Well, oops, it's too late for that. You now know about it. It's like if we were in the hospital, and there was a sick child and they were an immigrant and they're sitting there, anybody, it doesn't matter. We always say, we didn't need universal health care. We know our system was broken. We got that. But we don't want it running through the government because it's going to make it worse. And they said, ‘Well, you can't let people just die of cancer in the streets.’ Nobody was dying of cancer in the streets. You and I both know that when people would go into the hospital, they would get treatment. You know that, and I know that. Because it's what Americans do.

Today, I want to appeal to you. I want you to just think about this, please. The two citizenships that we hold. We will destroy our country if we only recognize the citizenship that we have in our country. If the Constitution of the United States of America is our god, then we are lost already. Our God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Our God demands certain things from us. He demands us to see each other. He demands that we help each other. He demands that we help the child. We help the suffering. We are the Good Samaritan.

There are some who are going to say, ‘I'm not going to help the people. They came across the border.’ Well, okay, but they're here now. They're on our border. Yes, some of them may be MS-13. That's a different argument. We can sort out who's who after we take care of people. That's for the government to do. I'm not talking about we're going to send them into our cities.

I'm saying can we please get them Port-a-Potties. Can we get them portable showers? Can we feed them? You want to show the world what it means to be an American? Then let's do that. Let's put the well being of others on the highest pedestal. I beg our politicians, please, stop seeing Rs and Ds. Stop seeing votes. Start seeing people. You got to get this one right. You can't swamp our cities. You can't swamp our churches. You can't swamp the American people. We're the only lifeboat out there. You want to help people? We have to be strong. You have to get this one right because the American people are charitable.

But the cause of charity, even though it's noble, is not a solution. It's just a means of closing the gap. You have to close the gap. You have to be strong and say, ‘Stop sending us your 3-year-olds. It's not right. It's dangerous for the 3-year-old. Please. Implore to people.’ They are just like you. What parent sends a 3-year-old across the border with a drug smuggler? I'll tell you what. Somebody who sees what's on the other side. Somebody who says there's nothing here. They'd be better off up there. I'll take the chance. What does that tell you? That tells you that things are so out of control in their country, that things are so lawless in their country, that their children don't even have a chance. Why in our wildest dreams would we try to help people in other countries by becoming lawless ourselves? The laws matter. It is up to the President, it is up to the Department of Justice, it is up to our Congress to actually stand by those laws and enforce those laws and if you don't like those laws, then change those laws. But until you do, you have to enforce them and until they do, we have to be charitable.

I don't know how you're going to react. I really don't. This is probably the hardest thing I've ever asked of you because I know how angry you are. I know what you feel on the border because I feel exactly the same way. But what makes us Americans is empathy. What makes us Americans is charity. When our game is divine, and everything that we do is noble, at least everything we strive for is noble, that's when we become America.

Could I ask you to donate to MercuryOne.org. I will promise you that every dollar – even if it is only a dollar – will go to help those in need. We will not stop helping those who are hit by a hurricane or hit by a tornado here in our own country. But now for the first time in my lifetime, we have a humanitarian crisis because the politicians have dropped the ball. Let's not drop the ball ourselves. Let's continue to be Americans. MercuryOne.org.

You can donate to Mercury One HERE.

Front page image courtesy of the AP

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.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep