David Barton talks "We are all Catholics" movement

On radio this morning, David Barton called into the show to talk to Stu and Pat about the recent attacks on religious freedom being perpetuated by the Obama administration. Barton discussed Harry Reid's tactics to keep the Blunt Conscience Protection Amendment out of the latest legislation, as well as the effect that Beck fans have had in helping push back against the attacks on faith.

Read the rush transcript of the interview below:

PAT: 1‑888‑727‑BECK. Pat and Stu for Glenn who is doing something pretty big now and he'll have all the details for you Monday. In the meantime, we have David Barton on the line. David, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

BARTON: Hey, guys. Thanks for having me. Good to be with you.

PAT: You've been following pretty closely, I think, this whole development about the attack against faith and conscience and the Catholic church. What's ‑‑ what's the latest that you have about what's going on with this and how this supposed compromise is going down?

BARTON: Yeah. What happened is, of course, yesterday Glenn talked about it a good bit and I will tell you, it had a big impact, no question about it. I talked to senators in DC and their phones were lit up. Actually folks had trouble calling through the switchboard number because there was so much coming in.

PAT: Good.

BARTON: And so that's really good news. People responded. They made their voice heard and they did so in such a way that actually caused Senator Reid to take a different course of tactics. It looked like yesterday or the day before Senator Reid was going to allow the Blunt Conscience Protection Bill to come up and, you know, the things folks have got to understand on this thing is this is not about the Catholic church, it is not about contraception, it is not about abortion. This is conscience protection for everybody.

PAT: Right.

BARTON: And this has been going on with this administration for three and a half years. I can go through a litany of what they've been doing, but most recently it's the Catholic church. So, Blunt's got this bill. It was coming up yesterday. All these calls were coming there and then the White House and the press secretary jumps out and says, No way, Obama is not backing off this, he's sticking right with it, and they're getting inundated with calls. So, then here comes Reid and he says, Okay, I'm going to take this amendment off. You're not going to be able to vote.

And the way they do that in the Senate ‑‑ you really can't kill an amendment in the Senate. You have to let amendments go through. In the House you can kill amendments. You run it through the rules committee and no amendment is allowed to come to the floor of the House unless the rules committee approves it. In the Senate you can bring an amendment to the floor, you know, any time you want to if you can get through the procedure.

So, what ‑‑ and I hate to sound complicated, but here's what Reid did. He filled it up with what's called perfecting amendments. In other words, every slot that was left, he said, I've got an amendment and he just started loading it up with his own amendments so that there was no time left for any other amendment. He just filled it up with everything he can think of.

PAT: Wow.

BARTON: He's basically taken over all the time and what it means as a result is that they're going to have to have a cloture vote on all of his amendments that have come up. They'll probably do that Friday. So, unless ‑‑

PAT: So, it didn't happen yesterday, in other words?

BARTON: It did not happen. And if they can get 60 votes on Friday, then it's not going to happen, they've killed Blunt's Conscience Protection. I don't think they can get 60 votes. There's too many Republicans on this thing and some Democrats, as well, which probably means after Friday Reid's plan will go down. So, right now if things go as we think it will go, probably the week of February 27th Blunt's amendment will come back up on Conscience Protection.

So, it really worked yesterday. Lots of pressure put Reid in a tough spot and rather than backing off, he's bowed up his back and said, You're not going to tell me what to do and so he's taking over all the time on the floor from now through the end of the week, essentially.

STU: I will say, David, if he did say that, he said it a lot more boring than you sounded. He never sounds that excited. You can go to glennbeck.com, by the way, and get all the details on who to call and the numbers and everything else. You go there now and see We're All Catholics that Glenn's been talking about the last couple of days and it's huge.

By the way, I was looking through one of these polls that came out about this issue, David, and, you know, I thought this was a key ‑‑ a key thing that no one's really talked about which is, you know, Catholics have obviously, you think, would be the most ‑‑ most ‑‑ most offended and I think every faith has to be offended because this is such an overstep by the Federal Government, but when you look at ‑‑ the question was asked was the question brought up by the clergy at church. Now, there was a letter that was supposed to be read in every church or at least almost every church; is that right?

BARTON: Well, in Catholic churches, Catholic churches came out with a letter to be read and you probably know the military side because Catholic military chaplains would read it, as well, and the Obama administration Department of Defense folks stepped in and said, wait a minute, we've got to edit that letter before you read it and they actually marked out parts of the pastoral letter for military chaplains to read which is another conscience violation.

STU: Yeah, but this is supposed to go ‑‑

BARTON: The government doesn't get to mark out what you say. There was a letter to be read and that's what ‑‑ that's what all Catholics were to read to their congregations on that Sunday.

STU: It was supposed to go to all congregations, but listen to this stat from the polls. Was it brought up by clergy at church? Among Catholics that attend church weekly, only 32% say "yes."

PAT: Wow.

STU: And that is a major problem. No wonder there's not this revolt. No wonder the Obama administration beliefs they can get away with it. If only 32% of people are hearing about this that are going to church every week in the Catholic church, they're just depending on people not knowing about the issue.

BARTON: And that's where, you know, what Glenn's got going, we're all Catholics now is ‑‑ well, that's just that population. There's a bunch of us, millions that know about it now that aren't necessarily in the Catholic church and we're making our voice heard. So, if they counted on it being a Catholic only issue and being silenced because only 32% heard, that didn't work out. Now millions and millions know about it and this thing really has taken off. There's been a whole coalition of groups and folks that have made this a huge issue as Glenn has and so if that's what the administration counted on, it backfired.

PAT: So, David, what do we do? Do we continue to call senators?

BARTON: Well, this is ‑‑ I've got to be careful how I say this, but this is one of the problems with conservatives. We tend to get riled up and get inspired to do something and we don't tend to stay in there very long.

PAT: Right. Yeah.

BARTON: And so, you know, he all got riled up yesterday. We shut the switchboards down. We let the senators know what we think and they're counting on us not really staying on this thing until the 27th of February or whenever they bring this up. So, they try to outlast us, they try to wear us down, and then we'll all get discouraged and say it doesn't matter because they all do the same thing and so what we've got to do is we've got to keep the pressure on and the heat on and we've got to call the senators and say, I'm outraged that you wouldn't let your leader get away with killing all the amendments. What happened to free speech and ‑‑ you know, whatever it takes for us to express. We cannot go away on this thing until we win this and, you know, the House will come up later in the year, but the Senate is up right now. We didn't think the Senate would be up until much later in the year, but this is a ‑‑ I really think that when they started this, they hoped to do it real quick, before pressure got put on. They got so much pressure yesterday that they said, whoops, let's back off. So, we're really driving them right now, but we just can't let them outlast us or outwait us. We've got to keep the pressure on.

PAT: So, we need longer attention spans this time?

BARTON: Exactly right. We don't need to microwave mentality on this thing. We're here to say.

PAT: Yeah. Keep the pressure on. All right. And you can go to glennbeck.com and find out how to get a hold of your senator and by the way, you have two of them. If you don't know them, that's probably a problem at this point. Probably a problem, but ‑‑

STU: Would you say?

PAT: Yeah. Not that hard to find out. David, thanks a lot. Appreciate all you do.

BARTON: Thanks, guys. Thanks for all you're doing.

PAT: All right. David Barton. You know, it's nice that it had an impact yesterday, but like David said, we've got to keep it up.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: We have to keep going.

STU: It's all about diligence.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.

The tides have turned — and now the very same banks that were pushing heavy-handed environmental, social, governance rules are running away from them.

In a significant victory, a federal judge in Texas has ruled that employers and asset managers cannot use environmental, social, and governance factors in employee retirement accounts. If this ruling holds up — which is likely, given the conservative composition of the appellate court — it will dramatically shift the balance of power between corporations and their employees.

This decision represents one of the most substantial blows to the ESG agenda to date. Companies that have been steering employees into ESG-focused investments, which prioritize progressive values over financial returns, now face legal repercussions. Continuing such practices would directly violate federal law. The ruling forces companies to re-evaluate their commitment to ESG initiatives, and many may withdraw from these funds before the case even reaches the appellate court.

Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying.

The impact of this ruling could very well be the beginning of the end for the ESG movement as it’s been pushed by elites.

In even better news, BlackRock, a major player in the ESG movement, has officially left the United Nations’ International Association of Asset Managers. This is a direct rebuke of the global push for ESG initiatives and a major sign that the tide is turning. In contrast to the Glasgow Net Zero Conference in which the Global Financial Alliance for Net Zero — an organization championed by global elites — was pushing for ESG to be a central focus, BlackRock’s departure from the group signals that even those who were at the forefront of this movement are starting to distance themselves.

But it doesn't stop there. Every major U.S. bank has now announced that they too are leaving the U.N.’s Association of Net Zero ESG Bankers, another key part of the Glasgow Financial Alliance. For years, we’ve been warning that ESG in banking was one of the primary ways elites like Biden, the Davos crowd, and others were planning to reset the world’s economy.

The tides have turned — and now those very same banks are running away from ESG, a powerful signal of things to come. They know they’re on the losing side, and they’re scared that a new administration will come down hard on them for their involvement in these globalist initiatives.

In another win, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unveiled a shocking new rule that, if it survives, would prohibit many financial institutions from de-banking customers based on their political or religious views, or even certain types of speech. While the rule is not as comprehensive as we need it to be, it’s a step in the right direction — and it includes concerns raised by our allies about the dangers of ESG. The Trump administration has promised to come down even harder on the banks with tougher rules, and this is a very good start.

Watching these corporations squirm as they try to backtrack and avoid legal repercussions is ever so satisfying. Some are running for cover while others are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with the powers that be. It’s clear that the backbone of these companies is made of rubber, not steel. They don’t really believe in the ESG values they preach — they’re just playing the game to get in bed with the political elites.

Now that Trump is back in town, these corporations are showing their true colors. They never cared about their customers or the values they forced upon them. It was always about the power they could acquire through catering to those in power at the time.

No company should be afraid of the president of the United States. But they’re not afraid of Donald Trump. They’re afraid of the return of the rule of law. They know that fascistic public-private partnerships between the government and corporations are on the way out. That’s a victory for freedom and a victory for the American people.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Inside President Trump's EXCLUSIVE inauguration balls

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Inauguration Monday was a busy day for President Trump, and it didn't stop after his inauguration address either. President Trump partied across D.C. long into the night.

Exclusive balls are a D.C. tradition on inauguration night, hosting many of the nation's most influential people. President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump appeared at three of the most prestigious balls: the Commander-in-Chief Ball, the Liberty Ball, and the Starlight Ball.

These parties had star-studded guest lists that included celebrities, musicians, politicians, and many more. Here is a peek into the exclusive inaugural balls:

Commander-in-Chief Ball

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump's first stop was at the Commander-in-Chief Ball, an event dedicated to the armed forces that defend our nation. The event included a dance where Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife Usha Vance joined the President and First Lady on stage and a performance from the country music band Rascal Flatts and country singer Parker McCollum. President Trump also spoke to U.S. service members stationed in South Korea on a video call and cut a cake shaped like Air Force One with a sword.

Several people of note were in attendance, including Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and actor Jon Voight. Musician and avid Trump supporter Kid Rock was also in attendance along with country music star Billy Ray Cyrus.

Liberty Ball

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump's second stop of the night was at the Liberty Ball, an event thrown for all of Trump's loyal supporters. The event had a magnificent lineup of musicians, including country singer Jason Aldean and rapper Nelly. There was even a live performance of Trump's iconic campaign song, "YMCA" by Village People.

Also in attendance were President Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, and her husband Jared Kushner, who appeared on stage with her father.

Starlight Ball

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Wrapping up his night of celebration, President Trump visited the Starlight Ball, which was full of major donors to his campaign.

Shortly after arriving, the presidential couple and the vice presidential couple shared a dance in front of a mock White House. Later the stage featured singer Gavin DeGraw for a memorable performance. Notably, renowned podcaster and comedian Theo Von was spotted entering the event. Von is known for hosting President Trump on his podcast for an in-depth interview during his campaign, which many credit boosting Trump's popularity with the younger generation.