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

Why Won't Hillary State the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?

January 06, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Hillary Clinton refused to explain the difference between a socialist and a Democrat to Chris Matthews in an interview on MSNBC Tuesday.

Clinton, who called herself a "progressive Democrat," sidestepped the question at first, saying this was really a better question for Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

When pressed, Clinton simply replied "I'm not one" before talking about how much she wants to get people to work together.

Glenn shared his reaction on radio Wednesday, saying it fascinated him that she couldn't answer the question---even though it was set up as a "softball question."

"She won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart," Glenn said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: CNN asked me if there were any questions that I would ask the Democratic candidates during their first debate. And I said, "Yes. What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" I think that's really important to know. What's the difference? Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. Hillary Clinton says she's a progressive Democrat. What's the difference between a progressive Democrat and a socialist?

A fascinating piece of audio. I mean, this is really, truly fascinating. Chris Matthews asked this of Hillary Clinton, and he is asking her in a way to help her. He's not coming to her and saying, "You're a socialist." He's actually trying to get her to say what the difference is. In his mind, there is a real difference between a socialist and a Democrat. I'd love to hear him answer this question.

But he sets Hillary Clinton up with what he believes is a softball question, and she cannot answer it. Listen.

CHRIS: What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? Is that a question you want to answer, or would you rather not?

PAT: And how about that too -- how about that qualifier, is that a question you would like to answer, or would you rather not? Because I can let that go if that's too hard.

GLENN: There was a real setup when he was talking about -- you know, before he got to that.

PAT: Yeah. Because he said, I want to help you out.

GLENN: That were his words. I want to help you out. Okay? Then, what is the difference? Do you want to answer that or not?

HILLARY: You know, you would have to ask --

CHRIS: Well, see, I'm asking you. You're a Democrat. He's a socialist. Would you like somebody to call you a socialist? I wouldn't like somebody calling me a socialist.

HILLARY: No, but I'm not one. I'm not one.

CHRIS: Okay. What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? That's the question.

HILLARY: Well, I can tell you what I am. I'm a progressive Democrat.

CHRIS: How is that different than a socialist?

HILLARY: Who likes to get things done. And who believes that we're better off in this country when we're trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings, and I respect that, you know, from the far right, the far left, Libertarians. But whoever it might be, we need to get people working together. We got to get the economy fixed. We've got to get --

PAT: What a crap answer.

STU: There will always be strong feelings.

CHRIS: I think the difference is -- and Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn't answer the question either. I asked her. Because I know politically you have to keep together -- the center left and the left has to work together. I know all that.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Do you hear that?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I know you don't want to answer this because you have to keep all of you together. But he started with, "I wouldn't want to be called a socialist." So here's what's happening here, in this, he's talking about -- he is saying, "I wouldn't want to be called that. I would want to be called a socialist. What's the difference between the two?"

PAT: She can't.

GLENN: Then he realizes she can't answer that or she won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart. They're trying to tell us that we shouldn't listen to people like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, he is crazy! He's crazy. And they've got to get Ted Cruz out of that party.

However, the leading candidate and one of the leading voices on the left from MSNBC, they're having a discussion that you probably don't even want to say that because you have to keep all of the crazies together. Isn't that interesting? They admit it!

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: While they are telling us we have to separate ourselves from each other.

PAT: Yeah. And her bogus, BS, totally garbage answer on what a progressive Democrat answer is. It's not about people getting together and working together. That's about the government doing things for people. If it -- it's conservatives who are about people doing things together. That's conservatism. We all help one another. We keep the government out of it. And we want them at arm's length. Her deal is she wants the government to do it.

STU: She said that she understands that people have strong feelings, though.

GLENN: She could be saying, bringing people together in groups. For instance, we want the labor unions -- I'm being sincere. We want the labor unions and the Department of Labor to work together.

PAT: Or it could be, we like to bring people to groups and put them behind barbed wire, like they did in World War II. You know, it could be that.

GLENN: Right. Right. The progressives did that. She continues to say, she's an early 20th century American progressive. But really from the roots of the progressive -- they were all socialists. All of them were socialists. The only reason why they weren't communists is because the progressives, those socialists didn't believe in a violent overthrow of the United States government. They thought, "We'll just do it slowly. We'll progress into socialism." So there is no difference between a progressive and a socialist. Anybody who tells you differently is lying to you.

PAT: Communist with patience.

GLENN: Communists with patience. That's all they are.

STU: Yeah. And it's speed of delivery, right?

GLENN: Yes. It's why Barack Obama signed in a -- in gun control yesterday in his executive order because he knows, if Hillary Clinton gets in, she'll leave that in and build on top of it even more gun control. It's progressive. Little, teeny steps to get you where you want to go.

STU: Uh-huh. What is the endgame of Chris Matthews in this clip? What's he doing? Is he trying to say -- well, it's obvious there's a difference between socialists and Democrats. But you can't say it because you have a little political group to keep together. Is there any more to that clip where he explains what the difference is? Does he even say it?

PAT: No. No.

STU: Because I can't detect it anymore. There was a time where I guess you could.

GLENN: Let me say this. Here's good news from the Democratic front. And I can't remember the numbers exactly, but I think 54 percent -- let me just -- let me be crazy wrong in the other direction.

30 percent -- I believe it's 54 percent, but 30 percent of the Trump supporters are Reagan Democrats. So they're Democrats.

That tells me that there are Democrats out there that want an FDR-style Democrat in office. Now, I don't want an FDR-style. That's a progressive. And I don't want an FDR. But there are those Democrats that want an FDR-style president. And they don't buy into this Marxism that is so blatantly obvious with Barack Obama. And they don't like Hillary Clinton.

So a very bad number is 30 percent of the support coming for Donald Trump is -- is from a Democrat. So maybe there's a difference there.

STU: I don't know. I mean, it's funny because you see this --

GLENN: It's an America first -- the difference I think is --

STU: Big government control.

GLENN: Big government control, but America first.

STU: Right. Which is kind of like that old-school union. What the unions used to be back in the day.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. More of a, I hate to say it, national socialist.

STU: Hmm. The question about whether socialists and Democrats are the same is being answered by the market, right?

GLENN: Yes, they are the same.

STU: Right now, Bernie Sanders who is an admitted socialist has 35 percent of the vote. Which you might recognize is about roughly what Donald Trump has out of Republicans. Now, that's about the same percentage. He's sitting here running -- he's in second place in the primary. And he's saying he's a socialist.

Now, she has almost identical policies to him up and down the line, which is why she can't make the distinction. She just doesn't want the branding. But the Democrats themselves are accepting the branding. They don't mind it. They're coming out and saying, "You know what -- and this is a prediction you made long ago, that people would come out and just start saying it. Well, is there a clear example of people coming out and saying it when you're saying -- a guy who has admitted he's a socialist, has a third of the vote from the Democratic Party. So you could say, "Well, there might be a slight difference here or there." But the vast -- the general vibe of the party is we accept these values.

GLENN: And here's the other thing, if you don't think America is a progressive nation, you have to look at 35 percent is going for socialist. Then what is it? 35 percent is going for -- or 40 percent is going for Hillary Clinton. What is her number?

STU: No, she's higher than that. She's in the 50s.

GLENN: She's in the 50s. Okay. So that's one side. 30 percent of the other side is going for Donald Trump. He is a progressive. He is a national progressive. And that's -- that's who he is. So, you know, you've got, what? 50 percent of this country saying, I'm cool with that. I am cool with at least an FDR-style presidency.

PAT: Except I don't think Trump supporters don't think that's what Trump is. At least the Republicans ones.

STU: Right.

PAT: They don't believe that he's the progressive that he is. They don't understand it. They don't get it. They don't care.

GLENN: How? How? How?

PAT: All they care about is his brashness. That's all they care about.

JEFFY: Well, and his management.

GLENN: No, come on. Don't be sarcastic on this. I'm really trying to understand --

JEFFY: They are.

GLENN: I don't think there's a way if you're intelligent at all, that if you're honest at all, if you look at his record of what he's done and said in the past and see him as anything, but a progressive. He said in the Republican debate, nationalized health care works.

JEFFY: Right. Right.

PAT: So you said it in your disclaimer. If you're intelligent at all --

GLENN: Or honest.

PAT: Or honest.

GLENN: I think there's a lot of intelligent people who are hoping that he is what they want him to be.

JEFFY: Right. The guy that will get things done. The management.

GLENN: Right. It's the same thing -- you know, reasonable people who voted for Barack Obama because he was about hope and change. And you talk to them, "No, listen. What is he saying about Jeremiah Wright?" That doesn't matter. He wants to change things this way. And they refuse to listen to it. So that's not intelligence. That's intellectual honesty.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a town hall meeting at the Orpheum Theater on January 5, 2016 in Sioux City, Iowa. Clinton, who is leading the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in Iowa, had three campaign stops scheduled in Iowa today. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

  • 45th in GDP Per Capita
  • 44th in Employment
  • 42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.

'MAD AS HELL': Here's what happened with the Epstein Files and what's next

Andrew Harnik / Staff, SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Jeffery Epstein's despicable low-life clients escape justice yet another day.

If you followed last week's commotion surrounding the release of the Epstein Files closely, you likely came away from the situation feeling frustrated and confused. Many anticipated the full release of Epstein's damning evidence, with names and details that would bring the hammer of justice down on those who indulged their wicked desires on that infamous island. Instead, we were dealt another disappointment, vexed once more by the swamp creatures Trump swore to destroy.

Many have turned their frustration towards the ensemble of new media representatives, including Glenn's friend and BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who was among those chosen to break the story. But don't shoot the messenger, if you take a moment to hear Wheeler's side of the story as Glenn did on radio, it's clear that the party at fault is the same enemy we've been fighting the whole time: the Deep State.

While Trump has won back-to-back victories during his first few weeks in office, he hasn't even been president for two months yet. It should come as no surprise that the swamp is still full of monsters, and they are starting to fight back. The events surrounding the release of the Epstein Filesprove there is still a lot of work left to do.

What happened?

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

To fully understand last week's events, we need to go back to an interview Trump's new attorney general, Pam Bondi, did with Fox on Wednesday, February 26th. On the night of the 26th, Bondi sat down with Fox News host, Jesse Watters, where she first announced that the next day, Thursday the 27th, she would be releasing the long-awaited Epstein Files, and even made hints that the contents would be of interest, saying they would "make you sick."

The next morning, Liz Wheeler and other "new" media hosts were summoned to the White House, though they did not know why at the time. No mainstream reporters were present and Wheeler speculates that the purpose behind that was to deny them this story in retribution for Trump's poor coverage. Then Bondi and Kash Patel, the new director of the FBI, came in with the now-infamous binders, along with a letter Bondi had written to Patel and informed the reporters of the bad news. They told them that the binders contained what they had previously believed to be the full Epstein Files, until Bondi received information from a FBI whistleblower. This allegedly happened after her interview on Fox, and revealed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the FBI had withheld large portions of the Epstein Files from both Bondi and Patel.

After this meeting, the reporters were let out of the White House where they were ambushed by the mainstream media. Believing that they were going to immediately break the news, the new media reporters smiled and waved, gloating their exclusive access to the story while their antiquated counterparts took photos. Then the new media reporters learned that the White House forbade them from breaking the news until 3:30 pm EST, to avoid Trump's conference with the UK Prime Minister from being focused solely on the Epstein Files story. This explains why Liz Wheeler and her fellow media representatives were silent for so long. It was a bait-and-switch that they never intended.

What did we learn?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

While initially this seems like a complete bust, there is new information we learned from this fiasco.

First, there was some new information in the binders, although a large portion of it was information we already knew. There was a copy of Epstein's Rolodex, essentially his contact list, which contained many of the same names we already knew had associated with Epstein in some capacity, though it's certainly not proof of any wrongdoing. The biggest reveal was a long list of known victims of Epstein and his degenerate client, although it was entirely redacted to protect the privacy of those on the list. This list was, allegedly, what Bondi was referring to on the Wednesday Fox interview, although Bondi's exact timeline is unclear and potentially suspicious.

The real takeaway from yesterday came from the letter Bondi sent Patel in response to the FBI leak. Not only did it prove our suspicions right, that this story is much deeper than we are being led to believe, but it reveals blatant betrayal within the government. The letter from Bondi orders Patel to knock some heads, get the real files, and compile a report highlighting who is hiding these files from Trump, Bondi, Patel, and the American people.

There are Deep State swamp creatures that are actively working against President Trump and his administration. Glenn likened this to aninternal Civil Warand encouraged Trump to take an axe to the whole system. We need to pull out this corruption root and stem.

What needs to happen next?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The next step is learning what Kash Patel found when he started knocking heads. According to Bondi's letter, the full Epstein Files and Patel's report were due on her desk by 8:00 AM February the 28th. The American people need to know what he found and soon. We have waited long enough.

There also needs to be immediate and hard-hitting action taken against SDNY, the corrupt FBI agents, and whoever else seeks to undermine Trump's presidency. Really, this should not come as a surprise, Trump has been in office for less than two months. That is a very short time to completely uproot the Deep State which has been twisting its corruption around every branch of our government for the better part of a century.

This is the first major hiccup of Trump's second term, amid nearly two months of victory after victory, and if anything proves the validity of DOGE's work gutting the government. While we can't let this slide, now is not the time to abandon hope, now is the time to double down and demand answers.

DOGE's top 5 BIGGEST cuts

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump has only been in office for a month, and already, he seems to have accomplished more than most presidents do in their entire careers.

Nothing defines Trump's first month more than the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Equally controversial as it is popular, the department, headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, has made it its mission to root out wasteful government spending. DOGE has already combed through a handful of agencies and eliminated billions of dollars of waste, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down anytime soon.

DOGE is part of Trump's initiative to curb runaway government spending and to start to chip away at the Fed's crushing debt. At the time this article was written, U.S. debt sat at over $36 trillion, with an estimated $1.9 trillion a year federal budget deficit. According to the U.S. debt clock, Musk and the DOGE crew have already saved more than $136 billion, and that number only keeps growing.

To help track DOGE's progress, we've assembled a list of their top five biggest cuts:

1. USAID

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, has been hit with the some of largest cuts out of any government agency and will potentially even be shut down. This comes after Musk and his team revealed theabsurd things USAID was funding, including a transgender opera in Colombia. The total cut came out to approximately $6.5 billion.

2. Department of Education

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

The Department of Education is another agency that faces extinction, much like USAID. The American school system has been found seriously lacking, with many students struggling to meet expectations despite the torrent of cash spent on education. Trump's new Secretary of Education pick, Linda McMahon, has sworn to turn the agency around and even oversee the closure of the department. DOGE has reportedly cut almost $1 billion in waste within the agency.

3. Institute of Educational Sciences

Steven Gottlieb / Contributor | Getty Images

The IES, or Institute of Educational Sciences, is tasked with tracking the academic progress of America's students and helping improve outcomes. The changes made by DOGE will not affect NAEP, also known as "The Nation's Report Card," and the College Scorecard, which tracks the spending, costs, and outcomes of universities. The agency was all but gutted by Musk's deep cuts, totaling $900 million.

4. Social Security Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For years, we've speculated that the Social Security Administration was a colossal waste of resources, but after Elon Musk posted a screenshot from the SSA database showing that there was a significant number of people over the age of 100 that were still consideredalive by the agency, it seems our suspicions are proved true. It's no small wonder Musk was able to trim over $230 million from the SSA.

5. General Services Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The GSA is the latest agency to be hit by the DOGE crew. The administration, which manages federal property and contracts, has started a massive "reduction in force" push, thinning the numbers of employees by a large margin. As of yet, upwards of $300 million have been cut by the once-bloated agency.