Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Rick Santorum launches "Patriot Voices"

June 11, 2012
Wilson

Writer

After a campaign that didn't quite get a candidate where they he or she wanted to go, many are willing to happily sink into the backgrund or launch new careers. Some end up on cable news, while others try their hand at radio. And while many still support the principles they campaigned on, fewer have taken an active role in shaping the elections once they've left their candidacy. Rick Santorum, who arguably was the closest to winning the nomination behind Romney, has decided to continue to stand for conservative principles with his new 501(c)4 organization Patriot Voices, "a grassroots and online community of Americans from across the country committed to promoting faith, family, freedom and opportunity in accordance with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

Transcript of the the interview is below:

GLENN: Rick Santorum is here. Oh, jeez, now he's got another website to push. Jeez, I thought we just got out of this Rick Santorumforpresident.org thing and now Pat, every time he's going to talk to him, is going to say patriotvoices.org.

Rick, how are you, sir?

SANTORUM: I thought I was listening to, like, a speech at the academy awards. I mean...

GLENN: Except you don't get a trophy at the ‑‑ you don't get a trophy.

SANTORUM: I want to thank my mom, I want to thank my mom and... no, that was good. Congratulations on the contract.

GLENN: Thank you very much.

SANTORUM: That's good job. Good job. Congratulations and many, many more.

GLENN: Let's talk about you because you're making me wildly uncomfortable talking about me. I don't do it very often. Let me ‑‑

STU: Okay. By the way, you can hear all this on GBTV.

GLENN: Come on! I was the only one who stood up in that meeting and said it shouldn't be named that!

SANTORUM: I never hear you pitching anything on the show.

GLENN: Shush, shush, shush. It's making me very uncomfortable.

SANTORUM: Yes, of course.

GLENN: All right. So Rick, people say that you launched this thing this weekend, patriotvoices.org, which is a 50 ‑‑ 501 ‑‑

SANTORUM: (C)(4).

GLENN: (C)(4).

SANTORUM: Right.

GLENN: Which means ‑‑

PAT: You're running for president in 2016. Basically, essentially that's what it means, doesn't it?

SANTORUM: No, it doesn't. It means we want to be active as much. I can't go out and say this was the most important election in the history of our country and as I was out on the campaign trail and then because the campaign wasn't ultimately successful in making me the nominee, I'm going to pack up my bags and go home. I mean, we have hundreds of thousands of folks who have signed up to help us, we have over 3 1/2 million votes and we have a lot of folks that we hear from a regular basis that want to keep the things that we talked about during the campaign out there and have concerns about the Republican establishment and going forward and whether conservatism is going to, you know, it's going to be front and center and so we're going to use this organization to try to, you know, keep those issues out there, help candidates that support those issues. And I've made it very clear one of the objections is to make sure that Barack Obama's defeated and that we elect a House and a Senate that can get some of the things that are necessary to get done in this country.

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: So this is part of how we're going to help going forward.

GLENN: All right. So help me out. Because Rand Paul came out and he's getting all sorts of heat. And, of course, you're a neocon, too. Rand Paul came out and endorsed Mitt Romney, and immediately he is the Antichrist with the libertarian right and, you know, is, you know, fighting for the destruction of America somehow or another. Can you please explain how a vote that isn't cast is a vote for Barack Obama and what the differences are between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, in case anybody is unclear?

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, Barack Obama's trying to fundamentally restructure America into a country that is unlike the country that we were founded to be and that made us the greatest country in the history of the world. That's the premise of my campaign. That hasn't changed. Barack Obama has a fundamentally different view of what America should be. And it's rooted, as you've talked about in his history which, of course, nobody wants to talk about, but it's been displayed clearly in his public policies which are oriented toward accumulating more power and control into Washington, D.C. It's the destruction of dissemination of the family and media institutions between the individual and government. I mean, it is a comprehensive agenda. Let's just be very clear about this. What Barack Obama wants to do to this country and make it into a European social welfare state and that's probably the kindest thing I could say about what his objective is. Mitt Romney and I have some differences on issues. Mitt Romney understands the greatness of America. He understands the foundational premise of America, limited government, free people, strong families and strong communities. He may not have in my opinion adhered to that on everything he's ever done but his foundational understanding of free enterprise and capitalism and limited government and strong family and media institutions, I have no question about. And that is a fundamental difference between these two candidates that has to be laid out and laid out clearly. Anybody who chooses to step aside in this battle has stepped ‑‑ has basically disarmed themselves and in so doing enabled ‑‑ who otherwise I think would vote for Romney have enabled the other side to have the upper hand.

GLENN: Okay. So your, your objective with Patriot Voices is to stand, to obviously stand, you know, against Barack Obama but will you also ‑‑ let me just ask the question: Will you also stand ‑‑ when Romney wins, will you stand against the GOP and Romney if they start more of this bailout nonsense and everything else?

SANTORUM: Yeah. I've been clear about that. We're here to support candidates that are the best candidates available out there to forward the American exceptionalism view of public policy is to, you know, limited government, free people, strong families, et cetera. At the same time we're going to be here past the election, we're going to be here during the election, and we're going to be an issue‑oriented organization. We are going to hold, whether it's Governor Romney or others, accountable for their campaigns as well as what they do if they're successful in their campaign.

GLENN: Let me ask you this: I know you're for Ted Cruz and you're for Liljenquist, are you not, in Utah?

SANTORUM: I haven't done the official endorsements of that but I have, in fact the last time I talked about this officially was on your show, but for me it's important that we have a strong principle ‑‑ if we can't elect a strong vocal principle conservative in Texas and Utah, what hope do we have? We're not going to elect them in Massachusetts and Maine. We have to go to the states where we can elect these types of real, you know, transformational conservative figures in states that can elect transformational conservative figures, and certainly Utah and Texas are two of them and to me the race is pretty clear as to who those figures are and it's Liljenquist and Cruz.

GLENN: Orrin Hatch has to be a friend of yours.

SANTORUM: Orrin's a good man. I like Orrin. I really do. But, you know, he's been very kind to me over the years but it's time for Utah to have another Mike Lee, someone who's making a difference down there in Washington, D.C.

GLENN: What do you think of Rubio?

SANTORUM: I like what I hear. I mean, I think he's a dynamic, articulate spokesperson. I think he has, you know, he has really a gift to be able to communicate in a very compelling way a vision for the country. I think he's got the vision thing down very well. I may not agree with him on every single issue. He represents a different constituency in Florida than I did in Pennsylvania, but I think he's a great future leader of our country.

GLENN: Is he a ‑‑ is he a ‑‑ is he a true small government conservative?

SANTORUM: Like I said, he represents different constituencies in Florida than I do and there are some issues that we don't necessarily see eye to eye on, but look, my sense is in listening to him and hearing him talk and following him in his career that he is ‑‑ he's understood like a lot of folks as we've gone through these last four or five years that were reaching a point where, you know, things that we may ‑‑ that you may have been able to go along with in the past just simply aren't viable and we need to do what Scott Walker's done, let's provide real strong principled leadership, let's get ‑‑ let's not just talk the rhetoric and understand the vision but let's have that vision actually play, you know, play itself through in the public policy that you support. I can't comment other than the fact that I think a lot of, a lot of conservatives hopefully are coming around to this and getting away from some of the things that they may have done in the past.

GLENN: There is a ‑‑ there is an article in Hemispheres magazine. I'd just like to get your, you know, your idea on this. Hemispheres asks Michelle Obama the question about, you know, saving the planet and, you know, she's really grounded in this gardening bullcrap that she's, you know, pumping out which I believe all the best gardeners come from, you know, right inner city Chicago.

SANTORUM: Inner city Chicago, yeah.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: But she's asked by how fragile the world is, et cetera, et cetera. And she says, wow, you're asking me to go deeper than I've ever gone before. Jeez. Well, I'm sure it's part about being a mother and watching my own kids grow. They're at the age where they're starting to sprout like a garden in summer. It's such a powerful thing to watch a kid change shoe sizes in just a matter of months. It reminds you that time is fleeting. Things happen. A seed turns into life. It's instantaneous in a way. But then you have to care for that life.

SANTORUM: Ooh.

GLENN: Do you have any gardening comments on that?

SANTORUM: Yeah. We have, you know, seeds that turn into life all the time in America and that unfortunately he and ‑‑ she and her husband don't recognize the dignity of that life when it germinates. But maybe I go off in a different direction there. Look, this is ‑‑ it's wonderful happy talk because it isn't have any real moral implications. The fact of the matter is that what they are ‑‑ what they are putting forward is a ‑‑ and I said this during the campaign and I got a lot of pushback on it but I called President Obama's environmental policies a radical theology. And let me just be clear ‑‑ and I didn't back away from it, and I'm not because it is a ‑‑ it is a in part a faith. It is a ‑‑ it's not a faith in a higher being. It's a faith in nature. It's a faith in sort of this radical element where, you know, nature is the object of our existence, not the other way around. God isn't ‑‑ you know, God is the creator of nature but, no, nature is a creator itself and we have to honor nature. That to me is a very, very scary view of how the world is ordered. And it allows for a lack of moral principles and implication because there's no higher being to call it to. So a lot of this radical environmentalism is rooted in something that I think we have to be very, very careful as to what we're teaching our children and I think we have to teach about creators and we have to teach about the creation, not teach about Mother Earth being something that we have to, you know, to serve.

GLENN: Rick Santorum ‑‑

PAT: And to hear more you wouldn't go to RickSantorum.com anymore. You'd go to patriotvoices.org, isn't that right?

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

SANTORUM. It's dot‑com, not dot‑org.

PAT: Dot‑com. Patriotvoices.com.

SANTORUM: Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that. Thank you so much.

GLENN: All right, all right, all right you two. Thank you very much.

SANTORUM: I know you don't hawk things on your show. So I really appreciate that you took the time to do this.

GLENN: Patriotvoices, is it dot‑com, dot‑org?

PAT: Dot‑com, patriotvoices.com.

GLENN: All right. Okay, Rick. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, sir. Possibly the guy that if Romney doesn't win, possibly the guy that will be the next president of what's left of the United States of America in 2016.

Bill Gates ends climate fear campaign, declares AI the future ruler

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.