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

Where's the Love? If 'Love Trumps Hate' Then Why All the Violence?

November 21, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

In the wake of Donald Trump's historic win, the left has gone on a full-blown temper tantrum --- and their hypocrisy is on full display. Love Trumps Hate is a familiar catch phrase at Trump protests, but evidently, it's only rhetoric with no real meaning.

"How hyperbolic can all of this get? How exaggerated can we expect this to become?" Buck Sexton asked Monday, filling in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program. "The guy is not even president yet, hasn't done anything yet, and there's all this Love Trumps Hate stuff out there."

Alongside the Love Trumps Hate signs are those with profanity or vulgarity. Chants that tend toward full-on profane are not uncommon. In some instances, Trump supporters have been beaten, threatened and verbally abused. Evidently, love only trumps hate when you share the same beliefs.

"There's no trace of irony with some of these protesters, when they say things like Love Trumps Hate and then they start cursing at somebody who doesn't agree with them on a matter of policy," Buck said. "If the Love Trumps Hate people are serious about making sure that Trump shows love and isn't this horrific dictator-in-waiting . . . I think they should also avoid beating people up for speech."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

BUCK: Buck Sexton here in for Glenn Beck today on the Glenn Beck Program. Thank you so much for joining.

So President Obama is president for a little while longer, and there are a lot of people who want to know how he will handle dealing with a Trump administration, post-Obama's own presidency. Is he going to be somebody who tries to hold Trump to account? Or is he going to pull a more George W. Bush maneuver, where he doesn't want to meddle in his successor's plans?

Obama was in Peru over the weekend, meeting with a bunch of world leaders, talking about trade deals, talking about all kinds of stuff. And he was asked specifically about whether he would weigh in on a Trump presidency right off the bat.

Here's what our current president had to say about how he will perhaps criticize or not our next president.

OBAMA: As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then I'll -- I'll examine it when it comes.

BUCK: Once again -- the assumption is where the condescension comes in. Just with the Hamilton actors making the assumption that they need to remind Mike Pence to defend their children, and the planet, by the way, President Obama feels the need to say that he will only step in basically if Trump takes the dial to 11, if Trump just goes wild, man. If he just does some crazy stuff, and casts off all respect and dignity. I don't know -- Trump -- dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria. Bad things happen because of Trump.

Can we wait until the guy gets into office before we freak out about everything?

The sort of collective hysteria from the collectivists. The left's constant proclamations that they need to get ahead of the coming catastrophe, is really in a sense a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because no matter what Trump does, they're going to think that it's horrific. Because they've been told now, ever since he won, that it was going to be horrific.

I've been saying from the beginning, they're so lucky that a hard-lined Republican, who is a bedrock foundational conservative didn't win. They're going to be able to get Trump to meet them halfway on a whole bunch of issues. It's much less frightening than they seem to think that it is.

Part of this is that they're upset that they no longer have the ability, the sort of secret weapon of shutting down speech they don't like by making claims of racism or xenophobia or misogyny. The misogyny one has never worked well for them, by the way. The War on Women even with Mitt Romney didn't work particularly well. Mitt Romney just wasn't going to beat Barack Obama in that election.

But they have President Obama coming out here and speaking on the world stage, saying that the door is open for him right after he leaves the White House to criticize the next document of the White House, if things get really bad.

Why do we have to -- why do we have to get ahead of things here? Why is there the suggestion that things might get so terrible that President Obama would have to weigh in right away?

I was wondering -- how hyperbolic can all of this get? How exaggerated can we expect this to become, given that I've had to wade through already some protests in New York City? The guy is not even president yet, hasn't done anything yet, and there's all this love trumps hate stuff out there. And a lot of placards and signs and chants that tend towards or are full of the profane, so I can't even repeat them on-air. I was taking photos of them. I was listening to some of them. Pretty nasty stuff out there.

And there's no trace of irony with some of these protesters, when they say things like, "Love trumps hate," and then they start cursing at somebody who doesn't agree with them on a matter of policy.

There have been some Trump supporters that have been attacked. There are actually people who wear make America great again gear, and that has been a symbol of -- or, that has been a target on them, and they have been assaulted because of it.

If the love Trumps all people are serious about making sure that Trump shows love and isn't this horrific dictator in waiting that they seem to think that he is, I think they should also avoid beating people up for speech. Just going to put that out there as an idea. I think it would probably be best that they didn't take the position that -- they have so much love in their heart, they have such kind people, that if you don't understand that and agree with them, then I'm going to punch you in the nose.

Whoa, settle down, everyone. This is not where things need to be. This is what -- the -- everyone from center left in this meltdown over Trump mode just needs to chill. But it's going to be hard. It's going to be hard. Because as you see, even with the transition, which you would think is a sort of boring -- and I'll talk about some of the picks and what's coming and the policy, that will be sort of more hour three today, although we'll get into maybe some of it coming up before then.

Transition team picks should be a pretty much straightforward process. Nothing to get anyone all that upset. You're looking at long-serving government officials. You're looking at people that are in many cases quite well-known to a vast majority of Americans. Trump is rewarding those who are loyal to him in the primary and the general, as I think any president would, and, quite honestly, should. Loyalty is important, especially given that he knows he's going be an embattled position from the very start.

Featured Image: A demonstrator holds up a placard during a protest against Donald Trump's US presidential election victory, at City Hall in Portland on November 11, 2016. Demonstrators took to the streets in Miami, Los Angeles, New York and other US cities to oppose Donald Trump's election as president for a third straight night of nationwide protests. (Photo Credit: ANKUR DHOLAKIA/AFP/Getty Images)

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

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 America’s next generation trading freedom for equity?

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?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.