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

From radio: Santorum endorses Ted Cruz

May 24, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On radio this morning, Glenn welcomed Rick Santorum to the program to discuss what he has been up to since suspending his campaign for President as well as many of the local elections happening across the country. One race that Santorum expressed a strong interest in was the Texas Senate race, and on the radio show Santorum publicly endorses candidate Ted Cruz.

"Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States," Santorum said.

"I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues."

"And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now."

Read the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is on the phone. Hello, Rick.

SANTORUM: Good morning. How are you there, Mr. Beck?

GLENN: Very good, Rick Santorum.

SANTORUM: Good.

GLENN: You've got that bedroom voice like, I just woke up.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Like I'm well rested now.

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I'm actually out here on the West Coast and it's a little early this morning but, you know, we've been ‑‑ this is my third meeting so far, but I'll try to pick up the voice a little bit for you.

GLENN: Wait a minute. This is your third meeting this morning?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, yeah, third call.

GLENN: What are you doing now? Aren't you ‑‑ you lost, you know.

SANTORUM: Oh, sorry. I'll go back to bed.

GLENN: Shouldn't you be, like, relaxing and be like, "Yeah, I'm not doing anything. I'm in my ‑‑ I'm in my boxer shorts walking around the house. I got nothing going on."

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, that would be nice but if we ‑‑ no, it's been a ‑‑ it's been, you know, obviously a very different pace, you know, when you're on a campaign and doing the things that we had to do every day and to step back, but it's been an opportunity to spend a heck of a lot more time with the family, which has been a great thing and, you know, think about what we can do in maybe a different capacity to try to make a difference in this, as I said in every campaign speech I delivered. This is the most important election in the history of our country and just because I'm not out there on the frontline as a candidate doesn't mean that I shouldn't do like every other citizen of this country: Be as involved as I can in making a difference come November.

GLENN: May I ask you a question: We were talking on the air yesterday about Sarah Palin's endorsement, and everybody has endorsed now Orrin Hatch. Am I missing something? What happened with Orrin Hatch where all of a sudden now they're saying that he's a ‑‑ he's a small government "balance the budget" kind of guy?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have any insight on this?

SANTORUM: No, I don't. I was surprised at that myself. I mean, you know, Orrin is a ‑‑ is a nice guy, he's a friend of mine, I served with him in the Senate. We had a very good relationship.

GLENN: Yeah, he's a nice man.

SANTORUM: But, you know, Orrin is not the kind of, you know, dynamic conservative leader that we really need, someone who's ‑‑ who's willing to get out there and take on the tough stances and really be a leader of a fundamental change in the way Washington does business. And that's what I'm looking ‑‑ when I look at candidates, because I haven't endorsed very many candidates going forward, and I've really taken the opinion that, you know, I'm going to step in races where I think you have really strong voices of people that you can trust to be principled politicians. And even if you look at two years ago, there's a lot of folks that got elected who became, let's just say not, not the kind of Tea Party reformers that ‑‑

GLENN: Exactly right.

SANTORUM: ‑‑ they campaign to be. They get to Washington ‑‑ it's tough. I mean, I know it's very, very tough in that environment. But if now isn't the time, when we're facing fiscal Armageddon and financial Armageddon in this country, if you can't be tough now, when can you be tough?

GLENN: Can't.

SANTORUM: And that's why, you know, I've, you know, been scouring these candidates very, very closely and have really only chosen a few that I felt comfortable in accepting.

GLENN: Who have you ‑‑ who have you endorsed?

SANTORUM: Well, I endorsed Mourdock in Indiana. That was probably the ‑‑ that's the first person I stepped forward and endorsed. Again, I ‑‑

GLENN: Nice.

SANTORUM: Richard Lugar's a nice man, but just like Orrin Hatch. I mean, they've been there for 30‑plus years and ‑‑

GLENN: Part of the problem and you didn't get it done, you haven't been ‑‑

SANTORUM: Well ‑‑

GLENN: Like Rick, Jim DeMint was there and he has been fighting solidly. Solidly all these years trying to get things done and change the course. These guys have not been those pioneers.

SANTORUM: Yeah. I mean, and Jim is not a popular guy. I mean, let's just be honest about it. I mean, Jim is, within his ‑‑ the ranks of the United States, he is not a popular guy with his colleagues.

PAT: Hmmm.

SANTORUM: Because, you know, he holds their feet to the fire and he's endorsed people against, you know, folks that he has to see and work with every single day. That is hard, folks. I mean, that is really hard. And so I give him a tremendous amount of credit for it. And he's gone out and done what he thinks is right and I think that's what we have ‑‑ we have to look for in candidates, folks who can stand up. And I wanted to talk to you today because, you know, I felt like there's a campaign and a candidate that I've gotten to know a little bit more over the past couple of weeks and I've done a pretty thorough, thorough scouring of not just his record but the people that are around him and close to him, and I felt like I wanted to step forward today and support somebody and I thought, well, what better place to do that than to call the Glenn Beck show and tell the people about that.

STU: Is it Barack Obama?

SANTORUM: Gosh, you know, what a Blockbuster endorsement that would have been.

GLENN: Yeah, wouldn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: That would be. That would be a surprise. That would be newsbreaking.

SANTORUM: You'd jump off a Butte out here in Arizona, having done something like that. No.

GLENN: Who is it?

SANTORUM: Ted Cruz in Texas. You know, this is a ‑‑ this is a tough race there because there's very good people in this race, but to me Ted is what we're missing in the United States, and I hear this every ‑‑ all the time from people that I work with that are trying to move the conservative agenda in Washington, D.C. Not just a good conservative vote but someone who has the skills and the leadership to be able to go out and articulate the vision and the message. There is almost no debate going on in the United States anymore. There's no one out there that can get up there and deliver the kind of impassioned, spellbinding speeches and really engage the debate in ‑‑ on the floor of the United States Senate. We're missing, particularly on a lot of issues. I mean, yes, you got people can do it on some of the tax issues and Republicans are always good at talking about lower taxes, but there are a lot of other issues out there beyond just taxes and spending, and we don't have a lot of voices on those issues. And Ted Cruz, I've seen him speak and he is spellbinding. He really is. He's just a tremendous orator and very strongly principled, under ‑‑ in‑depth. I mean, he understands these issues at his core and can ‑‑ and can really deliver the message. And we do need not just people who are good votes but people who can really motivate and lead. And, you know, one of the things that I felt that we were able to do out on the campaign trail was to, in some respects, inspire people by, you know, painting a vision, and Ted really has that capability that it's a very missing ingredient in Washington D.C. right now.

GLENN: Well, I tell you from your mouth to God's ears here on Texas, when is this primary? It's next week, isn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah, it's next week. And I sort of sat back and waited because this is a very interesting dynamic the way the race works in Texas. It's a ‑‑ you have to get 50% to win the election. If you don't, then the top two run off at a later date. And I was watching and looking and seeing how this race would develop and I think right now there's, you know, Ted has certainly emerged as the number two person to the lieutenant governor who has been the favorite and the person who's been spending enormous amount of money. And so I related Ted to another level, he's being outspent 4:1. I wish I was only outspent 4:1, but...

GLENN: (Laughing.)

SANTORUM: But still, you know, there's a kindred spirit when you're the underdog and being outspent and someone who's got the grassroots support and is out there working their tail off every day and, you know, that's the kind of candidate that I obviously, you know, that I was and I sort of gravitate to and so I'm pretty excited about being involved in his campaign and will be doing all I can between now and Tuesday to help him out.

GLENN: Right.

SANTORUM: And make sure that he is at least in that runoff. And who knows. Maybe he can surge ahead and pull off a big surprise and get to that 50%.

GLENN: Wouldn't that be nice. Rick, thank you very much.

SANTORUM: My pleasure.

GLENN: We'll talk to you again and stay safe. You're not done. I ‑‑ you're not done. Of course, you should be in your underpants right now and not be in all these meetings, you know, get a nap in because I don't think you're done with your service to the country by any stretch of the imagination. Thanks, Rick.

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!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

America’s moral erosion: How we were conditioned to accept the unthinkable

MATHIEU LEWIS-ROLLAND / Contributor | Getty Images

Every time we look away from lawlessness, we tell the next mob it can go a little further.

Chicago, Portland, and other American cities are showing us what happens when the rule of law breaks down. These cities have become openly lawless — and that’s not hyperbole.

When a governor declares she doesn’t believe federal agents about a credible threat to their lives, when Chicago orders its police not to assist federal officers, and when cartels print wanted posters offering bounties for the deaths of U.S. immigration agents, you’re looking at a country flirting with anarchy.

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic.

This isn’t a matter of partisan politics. The struggle we’re watching now is not between Democrats and Republicans. It’s between good and evil, right and wrong, self‑government and chaos.

Moral erosion

For generations, Americans have inherited a republic based on law, liberty, and moral responsibility. That legacy is now under assault by extremists who openly seek to collapse the system and replace it with something darker.

Antifa, well‑financed by the left, isn’t an isolated fringe any more than Occupy Wall Street was. As with Occupy, big money and global interests are quietly aligned with “anti‑establishment” radicals. The goal is disruption, not reform.

And they’ve learned how to condition us. Twenty‑five years ago, few Americans would have supported drag shows in elementary schools, biological males in women’s sports, forced vaccinations, or government partnerships with mega‑corporations to decide which businesses live or die. Few would have tolerated cartels threatening federal agents or tolerated mobs doxxing political opponents. Yet today, many shrug — or cheer.

How did we get here? What evidence convinced so many people to reverse themselves on fundamental questions of morality, liberty, and law? Those long laboring to disrupt our republic have sought to condition people to believe that the ends justify the means.

Promoting “tolerance” justifies women losing to biological men in sports. “Compassion” justifies harboring illegal immigrants, even violent criminals. Whatever deluded ideals Antifa espouses is supposed to somehow justify targeting federal agents and overturning the rule of law. Our culture has been conditioned for this moment.

The buck stops with us

That’s why the debate over using troops to restore order in American cities matters so much. I’ve never supported soldiers executing civilian law, and I still don’t. But we need to speak honestly about what the Constitution allows and why. The Posse Comitatus Act sharply limits the use of the military for domestic policing. The Insurrection Act, however, exists for rare emergencies — when federal law truly can’t be enforced by ordinary means and when mobs, cartels, or coordinated violence block the courts.

Even then, the Constitution demands limits: a public proclamation ordering offenders to disperse, transparency about the mission, a narrow scope, temporary duration, and judicial oversight.

Soldiers fight wars. Cops enforce laws. We blur that line at our peril.

But we also cannot allow intimidation of federal officers or tolerate local officials who openly obstruct federal enforcement. Both extremes — lawlessness on one side and militarization on the other — endanger the republic.

The only way out is the Constitution itself. Protect civil liberty. Enforce the rule of law. Demand transparency. Reject the temptation to justify any tactic because “our side” is winning. We’ve already seen how fear after 9/11 led to the Patriot Act and years of surveillance.

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Two dangers face us now: the intimidation of federal officers and the normalization of soldiers as street police. Accept either, and we lose the republic. The left cannot be allowed to shut down enforcement, and the right cannot be allowed to abandon constitutional restraint.

The real threat to the republic isn’t just the mobs or the cartels. It’s us — citizens who stop caring about truth and constitutional limits. Anything can be justified when fear takes over. Everything collapses when enough people decide “the ends justify the means.”

We must choose differently. Uphold the rule of law. Guard civil liberties. And remember that the only way to preserve a government of, by, and for the people is to act like the people still want it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.