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

'This guy is lying to you': Glenn breaks down the case against Grover Norquist

March 28, 2015
Staff

WRITER

GLENN: So let me make this case for you. And I think this is the most important part of this whole interview with Grover Norquist last night. You want to know who Grover Norquist is? He will tell you that he is a guy who is fighting the bad guys in the Middle East. He started the Islamic Institute. He took two checks of $10,000 each from Abdul Rahman Al-Amoudi. A guy who [was sentenced to] prison for 23 years. His sentence has just been reduced to 16 years by the Obama administration.

STU: Oh, that's nice.

GLENN: Yes. Al-Amoudi's number two man is Khaled Saffuri. When Al-Amoudi is known as a guy who is going to jail, Grover Norquist says he distances himself from it. But the number two man for Al-Amoudi is Saffuri. Grover brings him in as the co-founder of the Islamic Institute. Okay?

Doesn't make sense to me. I think you should probably ask a few questions. Now, Grover says, he didn't like Al-Amoudi because Saffuri had told him he was an old-style Muslim. If you remember at the beginning of the interview, he was saying that the problem was the old-style Muslim. So why would you take money from an old-style Muslim? Why would you take a loan from a guy who was an old-style Muslim, who also started many of the Muslim Brotherhood front groups here in the United States? Why would you be involved with him at all, if Saffuri told you that's who he was? Then he gets involved with Sami Al-Arian. He claims, 'I barely knew him. Maybe I sneezed in the same room he was in, but I didn't even know him.'

Then Jamal al Barzinji. Jamal is the father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S. He is the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood U.S.

Grover Norquist marches him in to the Treasury Secretary's office arm-in-arm saying we have to stop the secret evidence trail. When they were looking to shut down Muslim Brotherhood financing and terror financing and money laundering here in the United States, it was Grover Norquist and Jamal al Barzinji that walked into the Treasury Secretary and demanded that it stop.

Now, last night, he tried to say, 'well, it didn't prove any fruit. There was nobody that was indicted.'

The guy he mentioned that didn't come up with anything, we have the draft subpoena. I think it's 116 charges of money laundering and terror financing. It was the Justice Department under -- who is our current Justice Department guy? Head of the FBI, Holder. It was Holder's office that called it off. So they had the charges ready to go, and Holder called it off. So that doesn't hold any water.

But what did Barzinji do? Well, he also started Muslim Brotherhood front groups or his name is on the roster. He's part of Muslim Brotherhood front groups.

Then we got to Suhail Khan. Now, Suhail Khan has worked with the White House. This guy is fully laundered. This is the Van Jones of the Muslim Brotherhood. Everybody trusts Suhail Khan.

Last night I asked him, are you friends with Suhail Khan? Are you friends with him? I'll play his answers in a little while. His answer is stunning. I guess. It's my understanding that he and Suhail Khan are very close. Very close. That these two are joined at the hip. That they are very good friends.

He answered the question, 'I guess.' So wait a minute. What does that mean. Is he a friend? 'Well, he's a friend as much as anybody has a friend in Washington.' What does that mean? So he's not a friend? 'Well, I have a lot of friends in Washington. 150 people in my office every Wednesday, you know, that I have meetings with and I guess they're all friends too.'

So he's distancing himself from Suhail Khan. Why would you do that? If you think this guy is absolutely clean and you are indeed a friend.

Stu, if somebody came to you and said, are you friends with Glenn Beck? 'Yes.'

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Really close friends? 'Yeah, I guess. We've been together for a long time. Know each other really well.; Why? If they smeared all your other friends, I would hope you would say, 'look, I know Glenn. What charges are you making here, he's a good guy.' Right?

He didn't say that. He never said that.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. 'Yes, I'm friends.' That's not a hard question to answer, okay? Especially a guy who has been clean and clear for everybody. He's got the full weight of the White House behind him saying Suhail Khan is a great guy.

STU: You would be proud. You're tying someone who is a good guy to yourself.

GLENN: For instance, he said about al Barzinji, he said, 'what charges are you making against him? He's a good guy.' And I said, 'he was the founding father of the American Muslim Brotherhood. I think that is enough said.' 'Well, I don't think so.'

Okay, so he stands for the founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group he says at the very beginning is a bad group.

STU: Yep. Should be opposed.

GLENN: So he should be opposed. But he won't do that with Suhail Khan. He doesn't see my line of questioning. I think he thought I was going for another line of questioning with Suhail Khan. But here was my line of questioning. Remember, you're starting the anti-Klan thing. You're looking for people that can help you get people away from the Klan.

Suhail Khan's parents were Muslim Brotherhood, bad Muslim Brotherhood. They're friends with Al-Amoudi, a guy who is serving a prison sentence. They actually were involved in getting al-Zawahiri in to the United States covertly in the 1990s. Okay? So he could observe. That's the number two al-Qaeda guy under Osama bin Laden and then the number one guy after Osama bin Laden's death. So a really bad guy. They help him get into the United States covertly.

Then a few weeks or a few months before the World Trade Center bombing, they have a dinner with the Blind Sheik. So are there parents that are more Muslim Brotherhood than Suhail Khan's parents?

STU: That's pretty hardcore.

GLENN: If these things are contract accurate, that's the hardest core of hardest core. So here's what I asked. 'So you're friends with him. Have you had a beer with him and just shot the breeze?' 'Well, yeah.'

'Have you asked him, what was it like growing up in a household like that? What was it like to have your parents bring in the blind sheik, friends with Al-Amoudi, al-Zawahiri, what was that like?' 'No, I didn't ask that.' Play cut 11.

GLENN: Have you ever said to him, so Suhail, your folks were -- were pretty intense? I mean, your folks were Muslim Brotherhood, your folks just before the World Trade Center bombing had the blind sheik over to the house. What was that like?

GLENN: Listen to this.

GROVER: His dad has been dead for 15 years. Twenty years or something. So I've never discussed his dead father with him. I've heard -- again, I've heard the accusation.

GLENN: I've heard the accusation. I didn't talk to his father, who has been dead for 15 or 20 years, he says. Fifteen or 20 years. Well, I think the pain - it's not like he died last Wednesday. He's been dead for 15 or 20 years. Stu, you're running it. I have the guy whose parents were both grand wizards of the Klan, okay? They brought in the worst of the worst. They made the ropes and picked out the trees. They had David Duke over for dinner. He's out.

Two-part question. The son is out. He is against the Klan now. You're running an anti-Klan thing. Do you say, 'you know, I hate to bring this up because I know your dad is dead and it must have been horrible, but this can really help us, you're a massive asset, how did you get out?' Do you say that?

STU: Not only do I say it, it's the most interesting thing about you. It's literally priority number one to talk to someone like that. This is what my organization is designed to do.

JEFFY: On top of the fact, why do you have to ask that?

GLENN: That's question number two! Can I ask you -- have you ever met David Horowitz?

STU: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: David Horowitz parents were the worst of the worst. They were communist sympathizers. They were part of the undoing of the US during the red scare and everything else. They were spies. You can't shut David Horowitz up. You're like, can we talk about something else besides -- okay. If your parents were Muslim Brotherhood Al-Amoudi, Blind Sheik, al-Zawahiri, and you're now in the White House, you would be the biggest -- people around you would be like, 'please shut up. I get it.' You would be the number one guy ringing the warning bell. They've never discussed it. He is lying.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you would convict on this if you were sitting in a court that makes no sense whatsoever.

STU: I mean, it just makes sense. Here is an example of the exact thing you want. Someone with radical parents to turn around against those organizations. You have that person in front of you as a good friend on a routine basis, and it never comes over a ten-year --

GLENN: Fifteen-year time span. It makes no sense whatsoever. You've never discussed that. Makes no sense.

Now, my question to you is, you didn't accept any of this from the Obama administration. Now, this guy agrees with you on much of the stuff. He agrees with you, lower taxes. He's helping people get elected and everything else. He's on your side. Do you accept it now or are you consistent? Do you have the balls to have the courage of your conviction and say, yes, this might hurt in the short-term, but this guy needs to be out of CPAC. This guy needs to be out of the G.O.P. Who is he meeting with every Wednesday in his Wednesday meeting of 150 Republicans every single Wednesday.

Who is he meeting? What is he saying? Where is he getting his funding from? Who else has he white-washed and put into places that God knows Muslim Brotherhood should not be in?

This guy is lying to you.

STU: And what's important about this is, when we all look at the Republican Party and people working in those circles in Washington and we wonder why over and over and over again we -- we're able to win elections and not get the results that we want, we're able to put -- we have so many people saying the right things, but never doing the right things. Why does this continue to happen? This very well could be the string at the end of this --

GLENN: It is. I'm telling you this leads to Karl Rove. This leads to all of them. You want to know why we played footsy in the Middle East? You want to know why we have the Muslim Brotherhood in this White House and the last White House? Here it is, gang. Now, do you have the courage to look at it. Do you have the courage to stand? He's on the board of the NRA. He was with CPAC. I'll give you the list of all the boards that he was on. I don't have the list right now.

You tell me you think this guy is a good person to have around. He's not. He's not. And I will just say this, I don't know his motivation. I'm not saying he's trying to destroy the United States. My guess is he likes power and money. That's it. There's a lot of money in the Middle East, all you have to do is play footsie. And we'll be fine. And stop being so panicky and little girl. That's what's happening. He's choosing to turn a blind eye. I don't think he's Muslim. I'll just tell you this, his answers make no sense. None.

The SAVE Act scandal: Why are Democrats blocking voter security?

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.

Dire Wolves resurrected: CIA’s shocking plan exposed

"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.

Top THREE takeaways from Trump's "Liberation Day"

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.