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

John Ziegler's Crazy Prediction Comes True (Sort Of): Bush 41 Will Vote for Clinton

September 22, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

John Ziegler with Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on Glenn's radio program last week, suggesting that George W. Bush might endorse Hillary Clinton for president. Three or four days later his prediction came true --- sort of. Another George Bush --- George Bush 41 --- said he was voting for Hillary. 

"Does this count, John?" Glenn asked.

"I'll take it, Glenn. One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition," Ziegler joked.

Standing by his intial prediction, Ziegler said George Bush 43 could still cast his vote for the Democratic nominee.

"If this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president," Ziegler clarified.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these bi-partisan questions:

• What would make Trump winning the White House an unprecedented situation?

• What favor might Bill Clinton ask of his brother from another mother?

• Is Barbara Bush voting for Trump?

• How much would TheBlaze pay for a pay-per-view interview with Babs?

• What did George W. Bush tell Glenn in the Oval Office?

• What one question could Lester Holt ask at the debate to sink Hillary?

• What's with American blue bloods?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  John Ziegler from Mediaite.com and freespeechbroadcasting.com was on this program last week, and he suggested that George W. Bush might end up endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.  Three or four days after he made that prediction, George Bush 41 said that he was voting for Hillary.  We wanted to get him back on the phone.  

Does this count, John?

JOHN:  I'll take it, Glenn.  One-third or one-halfway to a rather interesting prediction coming to fruition.  

I -- just to clarify, my theory when you had me on last week was, look, if this thing is still close at the very, very end, I think that George W. Bush is going to feel a lot of pressure, both internally and externally, to do what he thinks is the right thing, which is to try to prevent Donald Trump from being president.

GLENN:  But who does that -- who do you think that actually helps?  Because you will immediately hear -- a lot of people, even me -- I mean, I'm not a fan of George W. Bush and his policies, you know, with prescription drugs and the border and everything else.  He was not the right guy for many things.  Constitutionally, the Patriot Act.  So does this work for or against?

JOHN:  Well, let's pretend it happens.  

And, by the way, you know, as interesting as 41's vote for Hillary would be, how much would TheBlaze pay for the pay-per-view rights on the Barbara Bush interview on why she's not voting for Trump?  That's what I really want to see.  That's a 29.99 deal right there.  I want to see Barbara Bush's interview because I think she would be the one to tell it like it really is.

GLENN:  Right.  Right.  Yes.

JOHN:  But if this were to happen -- if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, but it's just the beginning -- and if George W. Bush really is willing to grab a bat at the bottom of the ninth inning with the score tied, and Bill Clinton calls him up and says, "Hey, I'm not sure we can get this runner home.  We need your help, George" -- if that happens, you know, from his brother from another mother, then I think it would have an impact.

Now, would it be a complete game-ender?  No.  But the reality, Glenn, is you would then have an unprecedented situation.  You would have a situation where a guy who has never held elected office, never won a major war, and would have every living president from both parties anti-endorsing him.  I'm talking about obviously Donald Trump here.

Now, we live in an era where the establishment is not seen very highly, especially on the Republican side.  But there are still enough furious people out there of both parties, I think, where that would make a difference.

Like, for instance, how he would win -- how Trump would win North Carolina if George Bush did that, I have no idea.  There's a lot of very educated moderates in North Carolina, and I just don't see how he could win that.  I think it would also impact New Hampshire, Maine, where the Bushes are still very well respected

GLENN:  Yeah, well, if he loses the Carolinas or New Hampshire, he's pretty much done.  Is that still true, Stu?

STU:  Yeah.  Carolina, for sure.

GLENN:  Yeah.

STU:  And, by the way, one path to make Trump win North Carolina is have Black Lives Matter burn the cities down in it.

GLENN:  Yes, that is.

STU:  Because you want to see people push back against something, they'll do it there.  

JOHN:  You know, that's an interesting theory, and I've heard people say that.  And it might be true.  

Having lived in North Carolina though, I view North Carolina no longer as a Southern state.  I think North Carolina is very wussified.  I think the white people in North Carolina are as likely to say, "Oh, my gosh, we've got to help this Black Lives Matter thing," than they are to say, "Wow, this is repulsive.  We've got to rush to Donald Trump."  That's just my gut feeling, having lived there.

STU:  Hmm.

GLENN:  So let me go here:  We were talking about George Bush doing this.  And we've pretty much come to the conclusion -- I mean, I sat with Donald Trump -- or, not Donald Trump.  George Bush.  

Do you know George by any chance, John?

JOHN:  I don't.  But my marriage is intact because I somehow got George W. Bush to take a picture with my wife and I backstage at The Tonight Show a couple years ago.  And my wife is a huge fan.  But I do not know the Bushes, no.

GLENN:  Okay.  Okay.  So I don't really either.  But I happened to be in the Oval once where George Bush was in kind of a testy mood towards people who didn't necessarily like him.  And so I had finger pointed in my chest several times.

And he is -- he's rock solid on a few things.  For instance, I made the point off the air that -- that George Bush said to me, "I don't care if I'm the most hated man in the next 50 years, I'm prepared for that because I know this is right."

JOHN:  Right.

GLENN:  However, that being said, that was about terrorism and not about politics.  The other thing that can be said about George Bush is he is G.O.P. through and through.  How would George Bush do that and throw the party and Reince and everybody else completely under the bus?

JOHN:  Well, his father apparently already is willing to do that.

GLENN:  So you don't buy that this was a Kennedy that was having a private conversation and George H.W. Bush had no intent that that was supposed to get out?

JOHN:  That's quite possible.  But the reality is, there were a lot of people there, and, you know, the Bush team did not deny it.  It's also -- I mean, you know how these blue bloods work.  I mean, that would be a great betrayal if there was not at least some understanding that it was okay for this to get out.  But it's the Kennedys.  So who the heck knows?

So, look, I'm not pretending that -- I do not believe this is going to happen because I don't think it's going to be that close in the closing days.  But I do believe that George W. Bush, to your point, Glenn, is a guy who cares more about the country than he cares about his own personal self-interest or reputation.

GLENN:  Yeah.

JOHN:  And oddly enough, I think the thing that would keep him from doing it is he probably has so much class that he would be -- he doesn't want to be perceived as doing this as revenge for his brother Jeb, or something along those lines.

GLENN:  Yes, yes.

JOHN:  I mean, that's where we are in this country.  As you well know, when an act of courage and principle is ridiculed as somehow not being that because people want to rationalize it in whatever way they can.  And, of course, the Trump fans are, you know, black belts in rationalization.

GLENN:  Well, quite honestly, both sides are.  I mean, Barack Obama supporters --

JOHN:  Oh, absolutely they are.  But I used to think that our side was better, Glenn.

GLENN:  Yes, I did too.

JOHN:  I really did.  But you want to see rationalization, wait till White House spokesperson sean Hannity on a Friday night announces that, "Oh, by the way, the wall isn't going to happen," and the Trumpsters will rationalize that somehow that was a great idea too.  So we're not living in a world where rationality makes any sense anymore.  Has any value.  The facts don't matter.

But, look, so my whole point on this thing is, I think the Bush family cares about the institution of the presidency.  I think they care about the country.  And I think that they know that Donald Trump has no business being president of the United States, regardless of what the other alternative is, when -- as liberal as she is, as horrible as she is, as corrupt as she is, as much of a liar as she is, at least she seems relatively qualified for the position from a traditional standpoint.  And I think that that's where the Bushes are coming from.  And I don't think that's illogical and I don't think that that's a situation where they're trying to pursue their own self-interests or get revenge for Jeb getting crushed in the primaries by this buffoon Donald Trump.

GLENN:  Last question:  You wrote in Mediaite the other day that you thought Condi Rice and Dick Cheney will start to come out.

JOHN:  Well, no.  Dick Cheney won't because his daughter obviously is running.  And he's got his hands tied.  I think that if this is not the end of the Bush's involvement, I think we will see Condoleezza Rice take a shot at Donald Trump's lack of foreign policy, jobs.  And I'd love to see that.

By the way, since this is the last question, let me throw out another quirky prediction for you.

GLENN:  Go ahead.

JOHN:  I think that Trump's big chance on Monday and the worse thing that could happen for Hillary is if Lester Holt decides to ask the Colin Kaepernick question.  I think that is potentially deadly on Monday for Hillary Clinton because that is one area where her hands are completely tied, and Donald Trump can hit a grand slam/home run on an issue that I believe the vast majority of the American people are on his side and not on hers.  But she can't do anything about it because of the racial politics involved.

GLENN:  How should she answer that?

JOHN:  There's no good answer.  She's got to give the greatest "I love free speech" answer in the history of the world, and I don't think she's capable of that.

GLENN:  Yeah.  No, we were just talking about this.  This could be game-changing for Donald Trump.  She better have a different strategy if she wants to win than the 17 Republicans that didn't want to hit him.  And I don't know if she's capable of hitting him without looking horrible.

She's so horrible, that I don't know how she does it.  However, I don't know how he hits her without looking like a big man beating up on an old lady.

JOHN:  Well, if I was advising her, I would have one-liners.  And I would -- by the way, if he decides to be presidential, I would hit him with, "It's interesting to see that you've decided to be low energy today, Donald."  You know, go -- basically use some of his own medicine against him to provoke him into being unpresidential, which I think would probably be a tactic that would work.  

But I don't believe that we're a substantive people anymore.  I think substantively, she will win the debate, but it's always about style points in this day and age.  And so who the heck knows.  

I do think the media will protect her from a disaster.  But overall, she'll probably win the debate.  And I don't think it's -- but it probably won't matter very much because very few people are in a situation where they want to change their minds at this point anyway.

GLENN:  John, thank you very much.  Talk to you again.  

JOHN:  Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN:  God bless.  You bet.  

John Ziegler.  

I think he's fantastic.  What an interesting mind he has.  

Featured Image: Advanced copies of '41: A Portrait of My Father,' by Former U.S. President George W. Bush, are stacked in the George Bush Presidential Library Center on the Texas A&M University campus on November 11, 2014 in College Station, TX. Bush gave a talk about the book moderated by former White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., who also served as Secretary of Transportation for U.S. President George H.W. Bush. (Photo by Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images)

A new Monroe Doctrine? Trump quietly redraws the Western map

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.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!