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

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

There's No Carrying Water for Ted Cruz

January 07, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

This election season, Glenn finds himself in what he calls "a refreshing place." Why? He can finally fulfill a promise he's made to himself the last two election cycles: support a candidate in its purest form, without compromise or feeling like he's "carrying water."

"What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter [is] I have not once had to make an excuse for something he has done. ...Not once," Glenn explained.

No justifying something stupid he's said.

No justifying something cruel he's said.

No justifying his voting record.

No reconciling his private behavior versus his public behavior.

No apologizing for indiscretions with interns.

No explaining away something he did five years ago.

"Man, it is nice to be able to sleep at night and feel good that I don't have to carry a bit of water for any man," Glenn said.

Refusing to serve someone's interests comes at a price, though.

"Why is this show one of the only shows that doesn't hold water for Ted---for Donald Trump? I'll tell you why," Glenn said. "We don't have any friends. And we've often said, 'That's a really bad thing. Really bad thing.' And the reason why we don't have any friends is because we won't carry anybody's water. We just won't do it. If they screw up, we won't carry water."

Where does Glenn place his loyalty? With his audience and the truth---simple, freeing and refreshing.

Listen to a program segment below.

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

GLENN: I find myself in a very refreshing place. And it is a place I promised myself I would be in, but I have -- I promised myself for the last two elections I would be in this place. But I have faltered on that because I've been like, "Okay. Well, we have to get somebody in. Better than Barack Obama." And I said to this audience, "You stop me. If I get to that point, you've got to stop me. I will not vote for somebody who is just really bad. And I've convinced myself. Please stop me."

What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter, I have not once had to make an excuse for something he's done. I have not once had to say, "Yeah, I know, but he's really good on other things, though." I have not once had to justify one of his votes. I have not once had to justify something stupid, something callous, something mean, or something cruel that he has said. I have not once had to dismiss or justify his behavior, either towards other people in private, in public. Not once have I had to justify that. Not once have I had to apologize for something he did to an intern. Not once have I had to say, yeah, but that's that was five years ago, he's a different man now. Not once. That puts me as a voter and as a supporter -- I'm not carrying any water for this guy.

The only water I have to carry is when somebody says, "Yeah, well, he's not really conservative." Have you read his resume?

"Well, he doesn't really know the Constitution." Again, have you read his resume?

"Well, he's not really a good dad." Where do you get that?

"Well, he's in with these people." How? How?

"He's part of the establishment." They hate him.

"He's inconsistent." In what way? Name something you can say about Ted Cruz. I don't have -- all I have to do is correct the errors. I don't have to justify what he has done.

Never before in my life -- and I will tell you, it was like this with Ronald Reagan until two things, he made the deal with amnesty and the Iran contra affair. The Iran HEP contra affair, I happen to believe Ronald Reagan, but I'm not sure.

Ted Cruz is the only candidate I have -- and we watch these guys. You know when he was first on. We didn't know if we should buy him. We didn't know if we should believe him.

And I looked him in the eye, and I said on the air, "We'll be your worst nightmare." Why is this show one of the only shows that doesn't hold water for Ted -- for Donald Trump? I'll tell you why.

We don't have any friends. And we've often said, "That's a really bad thing. Really bad thing." And the reason why we don't have any friends is because we won't carry anybody's water. We just won't do it. If they screw up, we won't carry water.

My bond, my loyalty is to you. You were my friend long before any of these clowns were my friends. You've done more for me than anybody else I know. My loyalty is to you and to the truth. And too many people in the either are friends of Donald Trump -- I play golf with him. I know him. I've been to dinner with him. I've had all these relationships with him. And so I excuse these things because I'm a friend of his.

If you were a judge, you would recuse yourself. You would say, "I cannot discuss him in any way because I'm a friend." You would be -- you would be recused.

I'm not saying this as a bad thing. I'm saying this is human nature. You don't want to piss off your friends. You know, and I'll do you a favor. And so you're either doing that candidate, whichever candidate it is, a favor because I'm going to excuse you on this one because we're friends. We've got a good relationship.

I told Ted Cruz, "We're going to be your worst nightmare. We are not carrying any water for you. We will not excuse -- when the thing with the TPP happened, what did we say? We didn't excuse him. We said, "I don't understand this. I don't get this at all." We were the first ones on board saying, "Wait a minute. What are you doing, Ted?" What, Stu?

STU: I was going to say, you guys more than me. I was more in favor than you guys were.

GLENN: But we weren't.

STU: No, you guys stepped in immediately.

GLENN: We don't carry water. And I have to tell you something. It is so unbelievably freeing. It is a pleasure to be -- and if you can find another candidate like this, go for it. But it is a pleasure to be a supporter for Ted Cruz where I don't have to apologize. I don't have to comprise my credibility. What's wrong with the conservative movement? What is the biggest problem with the conservative movement and the G.O.P.?

STU: Comprising principles.

GLENN: And? And how do you feel? Why are you so mad at the G.O.P.? Because you've been out there with your friends defending these clowns and saying, "We're not like that. We don't mean that. That's not what we do. It's your side that does that." And then you elect them, and then they get in. And then you're like, "Son of a bitch. I've just carried all that -- you've hurt my credibility."

I don't have to do that with Ted Cruz. So the reason why these attacks on Ted Cruz are not going to work, one, he's 66 percent everybody's second choice. So anybody who attacks him -- if Rick Santorum attacks him, there's a good chance half of his support really likes Ted Cruz. And it makes you go -- the only thing you don't like about Ted Cruz is, I don't think he can win. That's the only thing -- that's the only negative I've heard on Ted Cruz. I don't know, his personality. I don't know if he can really connect with the American people. It's never about his policies. It's never about anything of substance. It's about, I don't think he can win. So when somebody attacks him, you immediately go, "Wait a minute. Hang on just a second. He's the only guy out there that is completely solid. If he had the personality of Ronald Reagan, we would all be in the boat for this guy." If Ted Cruz had the personality of Marco Rubio, this would be done. It would be done.

And so when somebody, who doesn't have the record of Ted Cruz, starts to say, "Well, you know what, he's really not -- you go, "Hang on. That doesn't make sense." And so you immediately demote -- you give demoting points to your guy because you're saying, "Wait a minute. That doesn't compute. So something is wrong. You're part of the problem."

PAT: We all like Rick Santorum. Look how it affected us, when he started attacking Ted Cruz. It pissed us off.

GLENN: I have no -- because we know it's dishonest. We know it's dishonest.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks during the Sunshine Summit conference being held at the Rosen Shingle Creek on November 13, 2015 in Orlando, Florida. The summit brought Republican presidential candidates in front of the Republican voters. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.