Glenn is going to the border...

July 09, 2014

The Glenn Beck Program

On Tuesday’s Glenn Beck Program, Glenn delivered a monologue further explaining his stance on the immigration crisis. Glenn made it clear that amnesty is not an option and the government must work swiftly to handle the “border crisis.” Meanwhile, it is time for the American people to step in and begin correcting the “humanitarian crisis.”

Glenn announced he will be visiting the border town of McAllen, Texas on Saturday, July 19. He will be joined by politicians like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and faith leaders as Mercury One begins to distribute the goods and services it has accumulated through donations to its Children and Family Border Relief Fund.

Over the last several days and weeks, Glenn has read countless emails and social media comments from fans who both support and oppose the position he has taken on this issue. On radio this morning, Glenn shared details about his upcoming trip to the border and sought to further clarify why he believes “there is no justice without mercy.”

Below is an edited transcript of the monologue:

We announced yesterday that I'm going to go down to the border a week from Saturday. And we have been asked if we would provide aid to the churches that are actually standing and bearing the brunt of what is happening on our border. This is Cloward and Piven. They're trying to collapse the system. We can't allow the system to collapse. We have to dig in and do all that we can while we stand and fight against illegal immigration. While we stand and say, ‘These people must be returned home,’ we must have compassion and not allow the system to collapse.

I am being joined by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) a week from Saturday, and if you think those guys are soft on illegal immigration or soft on the Constitution, you might want to check yourself before you wreck yourself. I announced this yesterday on television, and we saw people change their position – not everybody – but a lot of the people who had written just two, three weeks ago who said they'll never watch or listen; they're going to cancel their subscription; they're definitely going to stop helping Mercury One help people; those people wrote to us and said, ‘I have been thinking about this. I've been praying about this. I have been watching what's going on. And I do not agree with illegal immigration.’ Neither do I. ‘But we have to be human first, and take care of human needs and don't let the system collapse.’ The way we will lose is by appearing to be something that we're not, by appearing to be hateful people that don't care about children. That's how you lose. Guarantee it.

Do you know how we lost the gay marriage thing? Because we made it about homosexuality. I don't hate homosexuals. If you are in love with another person, and you want to get married, okay. But don't force me to perform the marriage. Don't force me or my church to accept you into the fold. There are other churches that will. That's my right to freedom of conscience. Your right to freedom of conscience is you want to get married. Great. Why is the government in the marriage business in the first place? Control. Power. To be able to use this to separate one another.

I am for legal immigration reform. The system does not work. But we've got to change. Nobody is going to listen to you if they think they're a hatemonger. They're not going to listen to you. You're going to lose this again. So, what can we do? Pick up our personal responsibility with malice toward none and charity toward all and go and serve.

Now, I'm going down to the border in McAllen, Texas, next Saturday. I am also going to the border at night with Louie Gohmert. Louie is going to help us unload these trucks. Louie is going to be there along with some of the pastors. Some of these pastors disagree with us. Some of these pastors are all for illegal immigration. What we're doing is not political. Because I can tell you Louie Gohmert is not for illegal immigration. Ted Cruz is not for illegal immigration. Mike Lee is not for illegal immigration. We are all for the rule of law.

But our first responsibility is take care of one another. And we can do that together. And as we do that, believe me, we will be having conversations with people. We will be having conversations and they will probably be the first conversations where we're not yelling at each other. Why? Because everybody unloading those buses will know we love people. We don't hate people. So we're starting at a different place. ‘Look, you care about the children just as much as I do. By the way, can anybody tell me at the HuffPo how many truckloads of food they've raised? Can anybody tell me any liberal talk show host – how much money you have raised? Can you tell me, anybody, anybody, who has gone down there and actually unloaded the buses or the trucks, the semi-tractor trailers, how many have you fed? How many of the liberal talk show hosts on MSNBC have gone and actually had a breakfast and a lunch where they served these people?’

I will tell you that next Saturday, I'm going to be doing that. And I invite everyone else to put your time – not your money –where your heart is. My heart is with anyone who is suffering. My brain is with the law. The law must be enforced. My heart is where I have mercy. And there is no justice without mercy. You have to have both of them. And right now, the conservatives only look like they just want judgment, and the liberals only look at it as mercy. You cannot have a rule of law if it is nothing but mercy. You cannot have justice without mercy. You need both. So why don't we lead the way? Why don't we do both? Why don't we demand real justice by being the first to stand up? Let us lead the way with mercy and duty and sacrifice and honor and integrity. And we will humble ourselves. We will swallow or pride. We will do the right thing even though it really kind of rubs us wrong because we shouldn't have to be doing this if you would have obeyed the law in the first place. But we voted these people in.

Please don't tell me, ‘Well, I didn't vote these people in.’ Really? Because I see the results of Congress. I see what John McCain did. I see what George W. Bush did on the border. So don't tell me we didn't do this. All of us have been involved.

I would like to ask you if you'd like to join me. This is not going to be a path for the sunshine patriot. It's not. I will tell you, you're going to make enemies on both sides now. I've already done that. I have already been called a traitor to the Constitution, a traitor to the republic. You name it, I've been called it. So now I am not popular on the right or the left. So be it.

I said last night, my fans are mocking me on Facebook and that's okay. Believe me, I went into this one wide open. I know exactly where I'm going. I know exactly who I am, and I know exactly what the consequences of that could be. And that's fine. But what I said on TV last night is: I've said a lot of controversial things. I've asked you to do a lot of crazy things. People will say all the time to me, ‘Glenn, you know what? You were right on so many things.’ ‘My gosh, I can't believe your track record.’ ‘You know, I thought you were crazy on the collapse of the economy in 2008, and you turned out to be right on that one.’ ‘I thought you were crazy about Cloward Piven, and then I started seeing stuff.’ ‘I thought you were crazy on the Progressives.’ ‘I thought you were crazy on what happened in Egypt.’ ‘I thought you were crazy that there could be a caliphate.’

I’m not talking about the border. I am talking about the human condition. I am talking about our heart, and I have never been more right on anything in my life than I am on our heart. If we close our heart, if we don't do the hard work right now – and I mean it's going to be hard. You're gonna do things and you're gonna stand with people you don't want to stand with. Nothing worthwhile comes easy. Hard times make us, to quote JFK. We don't do these things because they're easy. We do them because they are hard, because they're right. I've never been more right on anything ever in my life, and if it means I do it alone, then I will do it alone.

But I ask you to join me because I know who you are. I know who you are. It's why I love you so much. It's why I love this audience so much. It's why I have so much respect for you. You are unlike any other audience. You really are. You are not the typical talk radio audience. You are not the typical television audience. You are so atypical. I wish there was some verifiable way I could prove it to you. There is no other audience in the history of mass communication like this audience. Period.

I have said this to you since September 11th – and this does not come from me, this comes from my gut, from the prompting, whatever you want to call it – you are going to be responsible for a great change. You are going to be the ones that save the nation. And if I have to be out in the middle of a field all by myself with 10 people saying: Love one another. Be better than everyone else. Do the hard thing. Be kind. Be gentle. I know the world wants you to hate. I know the world is teeming with hatred. It's teeming with darkness. Shun it. Be good. Be a beacon of light and hope. Be the flame on the Statue of Liberty that the whole world looks to and says, ‘I want to go that way.’ You will be the shining city on the hill. I don't know what that city looks like in the end. But that's what we're supposed to build. And the eyes of the world will be upon us. They already are. Let's show them who we really are. Let's prove the world wrong.

If you'd like to make a donation and join me, you can make a donation at MercuryOne.org. If you can't make a donation, because you can't afford one, just pray for us. If you don't want to make a donation, please accept my hand as your friend, and I hope someday you'll be able to join us.

Learn more about Mercury One HERE.

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