Glenn: Mitch McConnell and John McCain involved in "shameless grab of power" in Patriot Act battle

Below is a transcript of Glenn's opening monologue from Monday's TV show

I want to tell you about the dog-and-pony show that is continuing now in Washington DC as the progressives, make no mistake, progressives in both parties, are fighting to make sure they can continue to collect as much of your own personal data as possible all in the name of security, of course, the Republicans, John McCain, a progressive himself, fighting for extensions of the sections in the Patriot Act that expired last night.

Three sections are done for, temporarily anyway: Section 215, the lone wolf provision, and the roving wiretap provision. Each part is important, but section 215 is the most critical because it is what the government has used to justify the bulk data collection on millions of innocent citizens.

The wording in that section is vague. It gives the government power to use all relevant information to stop terrorist attacks, and the government has interpreted relevant to mean anything and everything on anybody. Rand Paul has set himself apart from the progressive Republicans giving voice to the cause of liberty on this. He is receiving the usual flak for it. I asked him about it on radio earlier today, and here’s what he said:

VIDEO

Glenn: Do you actually believe they’ve actually stopped collecting information today?

Sen. Paul: You’ve got to be careful how they parse their words. They might have stopped one program, but they’ve probably got ten others doing the same thing. They have an executive order called 12333. Under that executive order, we really don’t know everything they’re doing, but they’re doing bulk collection under that. They may well be doing more bulk collection of data under that then they are doing under the phone collection program.

They also told us and informed us that in the previous Patriot Act there’s a provision in there saying that they can continue any investigation that was already ongoing. So, my guess is that since the bulk collection investigation, so-called investigation, was collecting everyone’s records, they could simply say well, we started doing that before, so that’s an ongoing investigation.

So, are they stopping it? I don’t know. I mean, that’s the whole problem with trust here on this. The president’s number one man over there, Clapper, lied to us and told us the program didn’t even exist, and now we’re supposed to accept that they’re telling us the world will end and the sky will fall if it ends. We’re doing it now. We’re shutting it down. I don’t know. There’s a certain lack of trust I have for this administration.

I have a lack of trust for any administration. The establishment Republicans who first claimed they had nothing to do with the Patriot Act are now clamoring to defend it, and they’re defending it to the teeth and warning that we are going to open ourselves up to attack if we don’t pass this. Mitch McConnell accused Senator Paul of demagoguery and disinformation.

VIDEO

Sen. McConnell: We shouldn’t be disarming unilaterally as our enemies grow more sophisticated and aggressive. And we certainly should not be doing so based on a campaign of demagoguery and disinformation launched in the wake of the unlawful actions of Edward Snowden, who was last seen in Russia.

Oh my goodness. Now, McCain told reporters that Senator Paul places “a higher priority on his fundraising and his ambitions than on the security of the nation.” But does the fight even matter? The Second Court of Appeals recently ruled that the vaguely worded section 215 doesn’t authorize the government to unleash mass data collection in the first place. But they’re doing it.

So, here’s Congress arguing for a new bill. This one’s called the USA Freedom Act. Now, the passage may or may not be directed at the NSA bulk collection, the data collection, but may I first start with the names of the ultra-PC bills, the Patriot Act, the USA Freedom Act? I personally think we should give names to these bills ourselves that probably have more accurate names, like the Trading Freedom for Despotism Act or Take Your Freedom and Shove it up Your Act Act.

Despite some opposition, it is expected to pass in a day or two. Proponents will claim it will end bulk data collection but keep other key security provisions in place. But remember, section 215 led to the NSA’s bulk collection thanks to a few vaguely worded sentences and dirtbags in Washington.

Does anybody believe that a bill that keeps almost every government data collection tool in place is going to change anything? They’ve just built a massive million-square-foot facility in Utah solely dedicated for mass data collection. The government will not give up this much power easily. This is going to be a long, drawn-out battle over probably several sessions of Congress and the next president.

But DC politics has reduced this to a ridiculous fight about security. Of course they want to make it about your security because if you’re afraid of an imminent terrorist attack or something happening in your security, all the dummies around you will hand their freedom much more readily. History has proven this time and time again.

When America entered World War I, Woodrow Wilson immediately labeled German-Americans enemy aliens, and the progressives rounded them all up. FDR did the same thing with the Japanese-Americans. The progressives rounded them all up in World War II. One month after 9/11, with a nation still reeling, the Patriot Act was rushed into being. No politician would dare stand against something called the Patriot Act just a couple of weeks after 9/11.

By the way, does anybody know where the Patriot Act—how did they have such an amazing bill, huge bill, all ready to go just a couple of weeks after 9/11? They must’ve been very sleepy. No, the Patriot Act was written prior to 9/11. It was on the shelf waiting to be dusted off. That is what led to the hyper-surveillance state that we’re now living under, not 9/11, politicians writing it in advance. We cannot afford to make the same mistakes because gee, what else do you think they have just waiting on the shelf? It’s not an elf, I bet.

We cannot afford to keep electing the same spineless politicians who trade bits of freedoms in the name of our perceived comforts.

VIDEO

Sen. McConnell: We’re left with option two, the House-passed bill. It’s certainly not ideal, but along with votes on some modest amendments that attempt to ensure the program can actually work as promised, it’s now the only realistic way forward.

Which pretty much puts me against it. This is a premise we cannot accept blindly. The only realistic way forward is to go back to our principles. We had this debate over 200 years ago. Everybody knows the phrase taxation without representation is tyranny, but do you know where that came from?

Do you know the man behind the phrase? His name is James Otis, Jr. He was born in Massachusetts, a colonial. He went to Harvard. He became a lawyer, and at the time, the colonists, our Founding Fathers, were subject to the whims of what the king called writs of assistance. What writs of assistance, they were kind of like our warrants, except anybody could write them.

Basically the British authorities had power to go into anybody’s house at any time for any reason. There wasn’t such a thing as probable cause. For nearly five hours, Otis argued against these writs in court on behalf of dozens of colonists who were baselessly accused of smuggling. They would have their homes searched and ravaged, and even if nothing was found, the government wasn’t responsible for any of the damage.

Otis lost the case, but his challenge to authority inspired some young men, including a guy named John Adams. Adams later said of Otis’s speech, “The child independence was then and there born.” Otis ignited what eventually became the American Revolution. It was his battle against these writs, these warrantless searches, that laid the foundation not only for the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, but arguably for the entire revolution.

Our right of privacy is a cornerstone of the American foundation. Why on earth would a people so easily give this up? For security? Mitch McConnell said that if the Patriot Act lapsed even one day, we’ll be in danger from ISIS and other terrors. I for one am really tired of this argument because I know if the John McCains and the Mitch McConnells of the world, if they actually believed that we were in danger from terrorists and they believed it was their job to stop it, they would’ve done simple things like secured our borders first.

This is nothing more than a shameless grab of power. Yes, we are in danger, but they are only orchestrating more power for themselves. My question for Washington is if the Patriot Act makes us so secure, why did the Boston bombing happen? We should have been able to hear those phone calls. Hey, why do we worry about what Hillary Clinton did in her 501(c)(3)? Why do we care? She erased her hard drive. Don’t we have all of that data collection?

Why did Benghazi happen? Why don’t we know about the phone calls and the emails that happened the day after? Shouldn’t those have been stopped? How am I supposed to feel safe when the very government claiming they’re using all of the necessary tools to keep us safe will not look into a single radical mosque but will monitor Aunt Judy’s phone call discussing important deviled egg recipes?

How am I supposed to feel safe when the director of the National Intelligence Agency says the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular—Muslim Brotherhood? How could I trust our CIA Director, John Brennan, who says ISIS is not Islamic when Islamic is the first “I” in ISIS?

What is comforting in any way about our administration running guns through Benghazi to Syrian rebels or how our own government, John McCain included, met and posed for pictures with the free Syrian Army who we later found out was working with the radical groups called ISIS? And the same people that told us yesterday that we can’t live a day without this were exactly the same people who lied to us just a couple of years ago and said this technology doesn’t exist, and it’s outrageous that you would even ask us if we would use technology like that. Of course, we don’t use that.

Our government is incompetent. Our government is corrupt. Our government, on a charitable day, is misguided. By the way, a story we reported on radio today, the government just ran an internal investigation to see if they could get weapons onto airplanes now. You know, they’re frisking everybody. We’ve used all of this great technology. We’ve got the best people on the job, so they tried to smuggle 70 knives, fake bombs, and items like that on board. They only managed to get through 67 out of 70 times.

So thanks, federal government, for your offer to have me trade my freedom for some of your yummy security, but I think we’ll pass. No thanks.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?