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

The Alt-Right's Claim to the Right Is As Legitimate As Dwight Schrute's Claim to Assistant Regional Manager

August 15, 2017
Staff

WRITER

In the wake of the weekend’s violent events in Charlottesville, conservatives have been distancing themselves more than ever from the extreme rhetoric of the alt-right.

The movement, which has been slowly trying to take over the political right, focuses on nationalism and has drawn Nazi support and praise from white supremacist figures like Richard Spencer and former KKK leader David Duke.

On radio Tuesday, Glenn and the guys analyzed the term “alt-right” and talked about the rise of the movement.

Stu Burguiere used a humorous example to show the world of difference between the alt-right and the conservative movement. In NBC’s comedy “The Office,” the self-important character Dwight Schrute likes to call himself “assistant regional manager” – even though he is simply the “assistant to the regional manager.” Similarly, the alt-right pretends to be the right, even though they are a smaller, usurping movement.

The analogy doesn’t work so well later in the series when Dwight does become assistant regional manager for a time, Glenn Beck pointed out.

“Temporarily having Dwight Schrute in charge of the Constitution and the movement to protect it might not be the best of ideas,” Glenn said.

GLENN: So can someone tell me alt-right, "alt" is the shorthand for what word?

STU: Alternative.

PAT: Altimeter?

GLENN: No.

PAT: Alternator?

GLENN: No.

STU: Alternator.

GLENN: Seriously, it is?

STU: Alternate.

GLENN: Alternate. Somebody define "alternate" for me.

PAT: Something used instead of something else.

GLENN: Something used instead of something else.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So if it's the alternate right, what it's saying is, we are something to be used instead of the conservative constitutional movement.

STU: Uh-huh. The literal definition of alternate is taking the place of.

GLENN: Hmm.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: So the alt-right, which the right opened its doors and said, "Come on in," announced, "We are the group that will take the place of you."

STU: Uh-huh. And I made this point kind of yesterday, when we were talking about the office where, you know, Dwight Schrute was assistant -- he wasn't assistant regional manager as he always tried to say. He was assistant to the regional manager.

And, look, there's various things around the right. There's a Libertarian right. There's a social conservative right. There's different movements among the right. But the alt-right is not an alternative right. It is an alternative to the right. You know, it is a -- it's a completely different movement completely.

PAT: Much as the left is.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: An alternate to the right.

GLENN: It is a -- it's an alt-left.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: When you -- for Democrats, when they took in the left, it was the new left. You can read all about the new left.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: When you read about what the new left really is, it was to supplant, subvert the Constitution and by using the vehicle of the Democratic Party or destroying it. So they'll either get into the car and then grab the steering wheel and take that car and drive it into a car of people, or they'll destroy that vehicle and then replace it.

So it's the same thing. And it's already happened with the Democrats. They're already gone, guys.

And it's what Joe Lieberman said. Remember, Joe Lieberman was really one of the last of the good guys on the -- on the Democratic Party, that had a spine. Up until he stood with Al Gore.

But he had a spine. He was a good, decent, honorable man, who I disagreed with. But Joe Lieberman is not the kind of guy you're going to get into a brawl with. He's not the kind of guy who is going to say, "Yeah, and, you know what," -- like Elizabeth Warren did -- "we're not left enough. We're not tough enough. We're not loud enough." That's not Joe Lieberman.

And what did Joe Lieberman do? He left.

Here is a vice presidential candidate who said, "I cannot be a part of this party anymore. Because there's no home for me here." He didn't run to the Republicans because he doesn't believe in that. He said there's no home for me here at all. When a good, decent man like Joe Lieberman had to leave, we all should have known, that is the end.

Who is the alternate that has now supplanted everything you knew? Who -- who is in charge now?

It's the uber left. And they welcome them in. And you're seeing them get more and more and more extreme.

STU: To the point where Democrats had a controversy earlier this year in whether they were going to give any money to anyone who was pro-life. Even if you're a Democrat on every other issue, if you weren't pro-life, you weren't going to get any money or support from the party. And that's how far they've gone.

I mean, their biggest successes, you know, in governorships and things like that over the years, a lot of them have been pro-life. Pro-life Democrat is a tough thing to be. Because if you have kind of that social thing with the pro, you know -- the pro-life side, you can get enough Republicans in the boat, and it's hard -- it's hard to beat those guys.

You know, that happened in Pennsylvania. It's happened all over the country, really. That has slowly been phased out, to the Democrat's disadvantage. I mean, the fact that they've been so harsh on that particular issue has turned so many potential voters off over the years. I mean, thankfully, honestly, in many ways. Because Republicans might not win any elections.

GLENN: And so what is the alternate to the right? The alternate is to go fully to a European system. That the left is communist and the right is nationalist, populist Nazis. Socialists on both sides.

The right and the left of Europe, they're both socialists. They both believe in giant government. It's just, are we going to be communists, or are we going to be national socialists?

Those are your ends. And that's what's happening. You are seeing the sealing of the fate of the United States Constitution, and Democrats and Republicans alike should be able to come together and say, "I don't want to stand with the Antifa people because I know who they are. They are communists and anarchists. That's who they are." They are not defenders of free speech. They're not defenders of the republic. They're not defenders of freedom. They are communists and anarchists. I don't want to stand with them.

You look to the alt-right. They are national -- nationalist, populist, socialists. And they have no problem marching with a Nazi flag.

How are we so divided? How are we so divided? We had a 50-year war against communism. And we had the biggest war the world has ever seen against Nazis. Wait. What?

How is America confused? There are enemies on the left and enemies on the right. They are very small fractions of this country. They are not the center of this country. And when I say center, I don't mean the mushy middle. I mean the people who still have strong principles and values that we disagree with and will argue until the day we die, most likely.

But the middle of this country says, "I'm not a communist, and I'm not a Nazi. I'm not a black nationalist, and I'm not a white nationalist. I'm sick of all of this." That's who we are. That's the center of this country.

No, you can't be in the center.

I proudly stand in the center of that group. Because the center is the furthest place from the communists on the left and the Nazis on the right. I'm proudly as far away as I can be from either side.

And yet, the media on both sides, because they win -- we lose. But they win, they are trying to make you feel like the other side is nothing but communists, or the other side is nothing but Nazis. It's not true. And you know what, guys, if it is, then we need a civil war. But it's not true.

Don't you see what we have? There are people that are stealing it, and they are using us to help them open all of the doors and the windows so they can get the stuff and then get our house. And we're living out on the street. We're helping the robbers burgle our own home.

Did Democrats just betray fair elections? The SAVE Act controversy explained

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor | Getty Images

One of President Trump’s key campaign promises, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, faces fierce opposition from Democrats in the Senate.

The SAVE Act recently passed Congress for the second time and is now headed to the Senate. This voter security bill mandates proof of U.S. citizenship for all federal elections. It garnered unanimous Republican support in Congress but was backed by only four Democrats, consistent with last year’s Senate rejection of the bill.

Glenn has repeatedly emphasized the urgency of securing our elections, warning that without reform in the next four years, free and fair elections may become a thing of the past. However, the SAVE Act faces significant hurdles. Republicans lack the Senate votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning the bill’s fate hinges on bipartisan support—something Democrats have been reluctant to offer.

So, what exactly does the SAVE Act do? Why are Democrats opposing it? And how can you help ensure its passage?

What the SAVE Act Entails

Stefan Zaklin / Stringer | Getty Images

The SAVE Act is straightforward: it requires voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before casting a ballot in federal elections. This measure responds to reports of voter fraud, including allegations of noncitizens, such as illegal immigrants, voting in past presidential elections. Acceptable forms of identification include a REAL ID, U.S. passport, military ID, birth certificate, or other specified documents.

Additionally, the bill mandates that states remove noncitizens from voter rolls and lists of eligible voters. It also establishes criminal penalties for officials who fail to comply with these new guidelines.

Democrats’ Opposition to the SAVE Act

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Democrats have strongly criticized the SAVE Act, arguing it discriminates against women, transgender individuals, and minorities. They claim that people who have changed their names—such as women after marriage or transgender individuals—may struggle to vote if their current ID doesn’t match their birth certificate. However, the bill allows multiple forms of identification beyond birth certificates, meaning affected individuals can use updated IDs like a REAL ID or passport.

The argument that minorities are disproportionately harmed is slightly more substantiated. A recent survey showed that 93 percent of voting-age Black Americans, 94 percent of voting-age Hispanics, and 95 percent of voting-age Native Americans have valid photo IDs, compared to 97% of voting-age whites and 98 percent of voting-age Asians. However, in 2024, only about 58 percent of the voting-age population cast ballots—a trend that has been consistent for decades. There’s little evidence that Americans are prevented from voting due to a lack of ID. Instead of opposing the bill, a more constructive approach would be to assist the small percentage of Americans without IDs in obtaining proper documentation.

How You Can Make a Difference

Melissa Sue Gerrits / Stringer | Getty Images

The stakes couldn’t be higher—free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy. Conservatives must rally to ensure the SAVE Act becomes law. Contact your Senators to express your support for the bill and highlight its importance in safeguarding electoral integrity. Grassroots efforts, such as sharing accurate information about the SAVE Act on social media or discussing it with friends and family, can amplify its visibility. Local advocacy groups may also offer opportunities to organize or participate in campaigns that pressure lawmakers to act. Every voice counts, and collective action could tip the scales in favor of this critical legislation.

Glenn unveils CIA’s grim Dire Wolf conspiracy

"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

-Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

The monstrous Dire Wolf, extinct for 10,000 years, has returned. This larger, ancient wolf species—popularized by HBO’s Game of Thrones—was resurrected by Colossal Laboratories, a Dallas-based bioscience company. Colossal utilized both preserved ancient Dire Wolf DNA and modern gray wolf DNA combined with some clever gene-crafting and a healthy pinch of hubris to create three approximations of the ancient canine.

While the wolves posed for a photoshoot alongside Game of Thrones props and its creator, Colossal’s broader plans remain unclear. However, what Glenn recently uncovered about the company is far more monstrous than the wolves will ever be. Glenn revealed that the CIA, through a nonprofit group known as In-Q-Tel, is funding Colossal's endeavors to bring back all sorts of extinct beasts. With the recently released JFK Files exposing the CIA’s unchecked power, Glenn warns of the dangerous potential behind this genetic manipulation—and the rogue agency’s possible motives.

Here are the top three most horrifying uses the CIA could have for this technology:

Dual-Use Technology

Xinhua News Agency / Contributor | Getty Images

Colossal and other biotech firms advertise a variety of "civilian" uses for bioengineered beasts, including research subjects, exotic zoos, and even climate restoration. As dubious as those uses are, Glenn revealed that the CIA could be cooking up something much worse. Gene-editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual-purpose and easily adaptable for military use. As one of Colossal’s major investors, the CIA gains prime access to cutting-edge biotech, likely eyeing its potential for warfare.

Frankenstein’s Spy Lab

Like AI, one can only guess at the maximum capabilities of this gene-editing technology. On air, Glenn speculated about bioengineered resilient organisms, animals with tweaked senses designed for espionage or combat in areas inaccessible to drones or humans. Playing God to create new weapons of war sounds right up the CIA's alley.

Even worse than man-made mutant mutts, Glenn pointed out that these augmentations are by no means limited to animals. We could see (or rather, hear unverified rumors of) the rise of the next generation of super soldier projects. Human experimentation is not outside of the CIA's scope (think MKUltra), and genetically or chemically augmented humans have been a pipe dream for many a clandestine organization for decades. Is there anything more horrifying than an agency with as little oversight as the CIA in control of something as powerful and potentially devastating as gene-augmentation?

Eco-Warfare Unleashed

MARCELO MANERA / Contributor | Getty Images

Why attack a single target when you could attack an entire ecosystem instead?

Anyone who has had to deal with the destructive effects of fire ants knows how dangerous an invasive species can be to the human, plant, and animal inhabitants of any given region. Now imagine genetically engineered Dire Wolves or Woolly Mammoths unleashed by the CIA to cripple an enemy’s agriculture or environment. Such a weapon could inflict irreparable damage from a distance. Even the mere threat of eco-warfare might serve as a deterrent, though its unpredictability could reshape the world in ways we can’t control or repair.

Trump’s Liberation day unveiled: 3 shocking takeaways you need to know

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump’s new tariffs have sparked global outrage, and even conservatives are divided over the merits of his plan.

On Wednesday, April 2, 2025, President Trump declared "Liberation Day" to usher in a new era for the American economy. This bold initiative began with the introduction of sweeping tariffs on most—if not all—countries trading with the United States. These tariffs are reciprocal, meaning the percentage charged to each country mirrors the tariffs they impose on U.S. goods. The goal was to level the playing field between America and its trade partners.

As Glenn predicted, these tariffs have caused some immediate damage to the economy; the stock market has been hit hard, and China has already imposed a retaliatory tariff. While many fear that a recession is inbound, along with a global trade war, others are trusting in Trump's plan, keeping their head and preparing to ride out this rough patch.

So, what exactly are these "Liberation Day" tariffs, and what happened on April 2? Here are the top three takeaways:

Baseline Tariff

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

To kick off Liberation Day, the White House unveiled a baseline tariff affecting all imports to the U.S. Starting April 5, 2025, every good entering the United States will face a 10% tariff, regardless of its country of origin. While some nations face additional tariffs on top of this baseline, others—like the UK, Australia, and Argentina—only pay the 10% rate. These countries enjoy this leniency because they impose relatively low tariffs on American goods.

Reciprocal Tariffs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For the countries that levied heavy tariffs against America, Trump hit them back hard. Cambodia, for instance, now faces a steep 49% tariff, while China contends with 34%, the EU with 20%, and Iraq with 39%. While these tariff rates may seem steep, they are all a good bit lower than the rates they apply against the U.S (see the full chart here). Trump’s strategy is to make foreign goods prohibitively expensive, encouraging manufacturing and jobs to return to American soil. Whether this gamble succeeds remains to be seen.

Canada and Mexico

Aaron M. Sprecher / Contributor, Chris Jackson / Staff | Getty Images

Notably absent from the "Liberation Day" tariff list are Canada and Mexico, America’s closest neighbors. That’s because Trump already imposed tariffs on them earlier this year. In February 2025, he slapped a 25% tariff on most goods imported from both countries to pressure them into curbing the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders. Exceptions include agricultural products, textiles, apparel, and other items protected under NAFTA.

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.