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

Hillary Clinton just topped Obama's "fundamental transformation" speech

April 29, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Hillary Clinton made one of the most important political statements of all time - and no one is covering it! During a campaign speech, she attacked the very bedrock upon which the nation was founded. No longer will dissenting opinions be tolerated. Religious beliefs have to change. There’s a progressive agenda forming that goes much further than anything we’ve seen from the Obama administration. What is it? What does it mean?

Listen to the segment below, and scroll down for the full monologue:

GLENN: The question for this century and for the future of America is this, I think. Can we find enough people that just will leave everybody alone? That just want to live their life, just do the right thing. Live their own life. Be good to each other. Don't hurt each other. And just leave everybody else alone.

Can we find enough people, Americans, that want to live their life that way? Dude, I don't care. I really don't care. You want to get married. You don't want to get married. You want to marry a dude. You don't want to -- you want to marry a girl. Fine. Whatever.

Whatever.

Now, if I say that to you, can you say to my church, hey, you want to marry, you know, just dudes. Just females. Females and dudes.

Whatever.

Leave me alone! And let's work together. Let's help each other. Let's be good to each other. Let's be good neighbors. How boring will it be if we all think exactly alike. There will be no growth. You'll have no growth at all if everyone is in lockstep with everything. Think about how much -- I've said this before. But I actually believe this. And I get in trouble every time I say it. Because people are like -- think about it. Thank God for Barack Obama. Barack Obama has made me a better American. He has. I am more involved. I know the Constitution. I know the Founding Fathers. I've -- I've discovered for myself Libertarian principles. I really don't want to get involved. I've recognized that, gee, these wars across the ocean are just dumb as a box of rocks to do. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. I've learned all these things because of Barack Obama.

Conflict helps us grow. Difference of opinion helps us grow. But difference of opinion is no longer valid. Can we find enough Americans that just want to be cool with each other? Because if we can find those Americans, we'll make it. If we can't, America as we know it is done.

I believe an extremely high-profile American politician has finally jumped the shark. I say this. Once you hear this politician. You'll say, no, Glenn, this politician will never jump the shark. There's nothing this politician can do. And I'm not talking about Barack Obama. This politician has gone farther than any politician I've ever heard in my lifetime.

And as usual, there's so little coverage of it except here. I'm actually not sure how many people know of it. And if the American people know about it, I don't even know if they care anymore.

But I can say, without any reservation whatsoever, this is a phenomenal statement that needs to be paid attention to by all Americans. Because the principle that was blatantly attacked is, in fact, the bedrock principle on which this country was founded. And it is this: Religious liberty -- you cannot violate my conscience. If I happen to believe something deeply, religiously, that's my business. I'm not in your business. Don't be in my business.

Now, if you've been living in a cave, you know, in one of the countries that hate our guts, you know, one of the countries that the Clinton Foundation sends tens of millions of dollars to or if you pay attention to the mainstream media, you may not have heard this.

HILLARY: Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.

GLENN: This is amazing. What Hillary is saying here is, it's no longer acceptable to believe something that the government doesn't believe.

For instance, Christians. I would assume this applies here. If the government says abortion is fine, you can no longer believe that it's akin to murder. If that marriage is between a man and a woman, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. You don't have the right -- you have to change. Quote: You've got to change our religious beliefs.

Those two issues are paramount to all progressives. In fact, it's safe to say, that to the American left, those are the two most important principles of all. It seems. Homosexuality and abortion. I don't think so. But they seem to run on that all the time.

So your religious belief has to change. Deep-seated cultural codes. I'm quoting. Deep-seated cultural codes. Religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed, end quote. That's not who we are.

That is just not who we are. It's -- it's an un-American kind of idea. It's -- it's anti-Christian. But Hillary is running in a country, don't worry, Hillary, you're only running in a country that is 75 to 80 percent Christian. So what could possibly go wrong? Nothing. Because nobody is paying attention to it.

So maybe I'm the oddball here. Maybe I'm the only one that cares. Maybe I'm the only one that sees a problem with that. Because I think it's the most outrageous line ever spoken by an American politician. That includes, we're five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America. That was one amazing statement that came from Barack Obama in 2008. And he did it.

So I take these guys at their word. When she says, your religious belief has to change, I take her at her word.

Five years ago, that statement would have been enough to topple any presidential hopes for any candidate. The campaign would be in ruins.

They would be dropping out of the race by now. Especially if that candidate had said just a few short years earlier in 2007, she said this.

HILLARY: I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history.

GLENN: Into the mists of history. Holy cow. This is phenomenal. I want you to take this monologue and send this to your friends.

We'll post it up at GlennBeck.com today. You have to send this to your friends because nobody is reporting on this.

So as I understand it, Hillary, since her fundamental, I'm quoting, her fundamental bedrock principles that she took umbrage to anyone who said she would reverse those principles, now that she has reversed them, well, you've got to give up yours too. Now that her bedrock principles have been flipped upside down, it's time for her to tell you that you have to flip your bedrock principles upside down as well. And the firstamendment, forget the first amendment. Hillary Rodham believes that religious liberty. The right to worship as you see fit doesn't exist in America anymore. If it goes against the collective knowledge.

Now, here's the scariest part. I want you to listen to the response of the audience after she said that.

HILLARY: And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed. As I --

[applauding]

GLENN: They are cheering. It reminded me of another chilling phrase I've heard before.

PADME: So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.

GLENN: You know what's funny? A pretty prophetic line there, especially coming as it did from George Lucas, the progressive that he is. And I know that when they did that, they meant that about George W. Bush. And that he has no problem whatsoever with that statement from Hillary Clinton. But when Natalie Portman said that line, I don't really think they thought liberty could die to thunderous applause. Maybe they did because of September 11th. Maybe they did.But here we are a decade later, and it has happened. The elite who want to finish the fundamental transformation of America that the progressives started over 100 years ago and this president slammed into warp speed are become less and less inclined to even bother hiding their efforts anymore. We told you this would happen. They would become so emboldened that they would start saying things that at one time seemed impossible to believe that anyone would even believe they would say they believed them and they would say it out loud. And here it is.

Hillary Clinton told us last week at the Women's Summit that our deep-seated religious beliefs would have to change. We are no longer free to choose. They are pro-choice as long as you always accept their choice.What she didn't outline in that speech was, what do you do to change it? If my deep-seated religious belief doesn't change, what do you do as a government? Will we be vilified? Well, that's already being done. Will we be fired from our jobs? That's already happening. How about fined? No, they just made the baker pay for the fine of, what --

PAT: $135,000.

GLENN: So what's left? Reeducation? They're kind of doing that with Common Core. How about we ban certain religions? We ban the Bible. How about we imprison people? We're pretty much running out of options here, gang. We're down to the last few. Banning religions. Reeducation. Outlawing the Bible. Reeducation camps. That's all we're down to. And I contend, we're already pretty much doing reeducation. Just not in a camp. It's called a public school.

I for one do not want to find out. I don't want to see. I don't listen to her and say, she doesn't mean it. When somebody says they're going to do something, we as people need to start believing them. When they're chanting over in Iran, death to America. What the hell do you think they mean by that? Well, they're just saying -- they mean it. Death to America. When ISIS says, we will behead every Christian, believe them. They're doing it.

When a progressive says, you're going to have to change your fundamental core religious beliefs, take them at their word. The left has shown you exactly who they are. Now, the last time this happened was with the Woodrow Wilson administration. And the Woodrow Wilson administration scared this country out of their mind so much with prohibition and everything else, that they ran from the progressives.

I don't think that's happening. After the progressives in the 1930s, when FDR died, the country was scared so much that Congress passed a law saying the president could not stay in office that long. And the Republicans won by running a campaign that just said, had enough yet? That was it. America ran from this!

After Jimmy Carter, Americans ran. I don't know if Americans are going to run. They're awfully damn comfortable. And they don't see what's over the horizon. It doesn't have to be this way. Life is not this hard. Just a few things you have to get right. Love one another. Be cool with one another. Don't try to change one another. Basically, everything that you do in your marriage, well, except for the one part that Washington is doing to us now, but other than that, just pretty much everything you do in a marriage.

Do me a favor, we're posting this on GlennBeck.com and our Facebook page. I want you to put this on your Facebook page. I want you to take these audio clips, and I want you to share these audio clips. There cannot be any excuse.

I'm glad Bernie Sanders is getting into the race this week. Because Bernie Sanders is going to say, I'm a socialist. Good. I welcome you. Let's have a real debate. Hey, I really believe what they're doing in Sweden is the right thing. Good. Then let's talk about that. Let's not have this bullcrap back and forth where you're lying and the other guy is lying. Where you got Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush both lying about what they're going to do. Can we be honest?

Can we be adults? Can we be Americans and actually disagree with each other's opinions anymore?

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.