Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn: The "most dangerous" period of U.S. history since the Civil War begins tomorrow night

November 03, 2014
Wilson

Writer

After tomorrow's election, we could be headed for the most dangerous period of history since the Civil War. All signs point to the Republicans regaining complete control of Congress, setting the stage for a battle between the president and the GOP over immigration reform signed into law with the president's pen and paper. The Democrats will be able to sit back and appear to the moderates, and at the forefront will be the next President of the United States: Hillary Rodham Clinton. How does it happen? Glenn laid out the prediction on radio Monday morning.

Who wins tomorrow's election? I will tell you that I do not believe it will be you that wins. It may be the Democrats, it may be the Republicans. But it definitely will not be you. And let me explain exactly what I mean by that.

I believe the Republicans are going to win tomorrow. The Republicans are going to win control of the Senate and the House. And before people who might be in this audience start to cheer, let me explain why that isn't necessarily a good thing, even for the Republicans.

I don't think it's necessarily a good thing for the Republic, because I don't believe the Republicans represent the Republic anymore. They are progressive and they will do exactly what they want. In fact, if Mitt Romney has his way, what they're going to do is immediately forward comprehensive immigration reform. And this will just be a watered-down version of what the Democrats will want to do. And you'll get all of the credit for that. Let me just talk politics here for a second. Republicans, you're going to get all the same kind of credit that you got for the Civil Rights Act. And congratulations on that, because that was yours. And you're seeing how well that's working out for you now, don't you?

So what's going to happen? The Republicans think that they're going to continue to play the same game that has always been played in America. And they think that they're going to be able to come in and actually turn the tide here. They think that they're actually going to make a difference, because they're going to come in with their reform bill and they're going to come in and they're going to start holding people responsible. But they're going to be moderate, too, you know. They're not going to be too crazy. They're not going to be like those Tea Party people.

Meanwhile, the president is standing alone. Have you noticed that? The president -- there's nobody asking the president, hey, could we get the president to speak? Nobody is showing up for the president. The Democrats don't want to see the president. So what happens?

Try this out for size: Tomorrow the Republicans win. They win control of House and Senate. The [Democrats] are out. The Democrats begin to blame the president and his policies. Whether they do so outwardly or not, I'm not so sure. I think that they just continue down this road, this path, where they say, the president, it doesn't matter. The president is irrelevant at this point. The president is a lame duck. He's a lame duck president.

No, he's anything but a lame duck. Because the Democrats are going to pull away from this president, the president is going to see an open highway. The president believes the things that he says. The president believes that comprehensive immigration reform doesn't go far enough. The president believes that we shouldn't be asking people for a green card. There are no borders here. You come in. You have a right to work here. I think Rand Paul believes that. It's not so radical to some people. So he believes in this open border. He has a phone and a pen and he's going to use it.

Now, what does that do?

What that does is that sets the country on fire and splits us even deeper, because there are those who believe, and I'm one of them, that this actually is the end of the republic as we know it. You just can't open up the borders. Read Gibbons, Mr. President. It was the last act before Rome fell. You just can't open the borders, especially with everything that's going on, between the disease that, Mr. President, your policies brought in to this country. The enterovirus, that has crippled children, killed children, nobody is willing to talk about it, look into it. Look at the stats. That was brought in from people coming across the border and infecting our children. But that's just the beginning of it.

If you open and give these green cards, which they've now printed nine million green cards, if you just start giving everybody a green card, that's just going to open the borders up even more. Then everybody will come, because now they'll say, oh, my gosh. They actually did it. It's not just come and the possibility. They actually did it. So come. It opens our borders up even more.

That requires the Republicans then to take a strong stand and the Republicans to say, you can't do that, which sets up a battle. But it's a battle between the president, not the Democrats, the president and the GOP.

The Democrats will step back. The Democrats will suddenly say, you know, we're not in this. That's the president. And they will watch. And they will see which way the wind is blowing. Some will step up. Most will not. And the one that won't, the one that will be cautioning, step back, step back, just wait, wait for the right time. Wait for it to settle down. Wait for the ads to begin. Wait for them to change public opinion. And the ads will start and they will be run by people like Mark Zuckerberg.

They will run the same campaign, the campaign that was run on gay marriage. None of us hate gay people. I mean, I'm sure there are people that hate gay people. Those are in the extreme minority. And they're freaks. Nobody hate gay people. Nobody wants them to be unhappy. If you love somebody, love somebody, whatever. I'm not your judge, dude. However, I believe in traditional marriage. Okay, you don't. Okay. My stance has been why is the government involved in this at all? I don't get any value from the government telling me who I can and cannot marry. Don't do this because then the next thing the government will have to do is tell my church that I have to marry gay couples. Now you're get -- now you're interfering with church. Any thinking person could see this nightmare coming a million miles away, but it was denied. And what they did was they personalized it and made anyone who said they were against gay marriage a hater. It worked now, didn't it?

So why not use this, Mark Zuckerberg, why not use this as your approach? We all know people who are living in the shadows. They cut your lawn, they fix your house. They're hardworking Americans. We all know them. Why would you hate those who are working here, who just want to have a better life?

They will begin to position it and make it personal instead of about making it about principles. Because we're a nation without any principles, because we're a nation that can't even think about principles anymore, anyone who stands against just opening up the borders is going to be deemed a hatemonger.

Maybe not the first day, but definitely by 2016. And as soon as this shakes out, it will divide the country. And it will be a fight between the president and the GOP.

And who will be there to say, look, the GOP is crazy. They're full of haters. They're full of racists. Now the president, did he do the right thing? No, I don't think he did. But there's a place in between here and we need to start talking about common sense.

May I introduce you to the next president of the United States, Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

She will play the middle ground. She will be the great mediator. She will be the one that plays right in the middle. Look, I'm not with -- I'm certainly not with the GOP. But I'm not really with the president either.

We're in the most dangerous position this republic has been in since the Civil War. And it begins on Wednesday. Whenever the balance of power is given, the president is unleashed. He no longer has to worry about the Democrats because the Democrats don't like him and quite frankly I don't think he likes them.

He's certainly does not in bed with the Clintons. He doesn't like the Clintons, he never has and the Clintons don't like him.

He believes in his principles. I think he believes he's been wronged the whole time. I believe the president thinks he's a victim. He's a victim of me, of Fox News, of now it will be the Democrats deserting him. All he was trying to do is what he was trying to do.

Quite honestly, I kind of agree with him. He was at least transparent before he became president. You knew -- he said everything that he was going to do. Nobody took him at his word. He said he was going to do,  may I just remind you, fundamental transformation of the United States. May I just remind you of his wife. Barack knows, you're going to have to change your traditions, you're going to have to change your language. You're going to have to change everything. So he was honest. He said it.

Now you could say he wasn't exactly honest because he was lying about single-payer system, but he at least said it and we have him on tape. When,  when Mitt Romney said one thing on tape in a back room, everybody said that was the worst thing that could ever possibly happen. He said that's not what I meant.

Nobody even asked the president if what they had on tape, what we played on Fox over and over and over again was what he meant. Everybody just dismissed it and pointed the finger and said you're a hater.

So I kind of actually agree with the president, that he's been wronged by his own party. He's been wronged by his own supporters. He got more done than any other democratic president in the history of the United States of America and I think that's more than FDR. He fundamentally changed the United States of America. Because he believes it.

He's going to do exactly what Woodrow Wilson tried to do but Woodrow Wilson in the end -- remember, when he was, quote, the lame duck, he couldn't get those things through. This president doesn't care. This president will sign it through. And the Democrats are smart enough to just stand back.

If Harry Reid is still part of the Senate, then these things can't come true.If Harry Reid is running the Senate, then he's going to have a harder time getting these things through, because the Democrats will get the blame.

But the minute the GOP takes control, the president has a wide open highway. He'll floor this sucker.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.