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

Someone produced a country song promoting Hillary Clinton and it’s worse than you could imagine

December 05, 2014
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Somewhere, someone thought a really good way to promote Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential campaign would be to create a country song about how wonderful Hillary Clinton is and spread it around the internet. It is infinitely more horrible than anything you could possibly imagine. Brace yourself and listen to it along with Glenn’s reaction!

GLENN: Welcome to the program. We have — stop the music, because the real piece of music here for you. This came in yesterday. And Tania and I — I played it for Tania without — without telling her what it was, and she looked up at me halfway through and she laughed and she said, is this you guys?

(laughing).

GLENN: And I said, no, honey, this is not us doing a parody. This is serious, a new song for the Hillary campaign. Listen to this.

(music).

GLENN: By the way, when I hear country music —

PAT: You think Hillary immediately.

GLENN: I think of Hillary Clinton immediately.

(laughing).

(music playing)

(singing)

GLENN: This is so bad.

(singing).

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Stop.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Stop. Let's put our boots on. Guys, let's put our boots on and bash this glass ceiling.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: This is —

PAT: Wait, you're bashing in a glass ceiling with your boots?

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So —

GLENN: Don't think about it. They spray painted 2016 on glass. So it's guys, let's bash this glass ceiling for women.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: It's time to elect a woman.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: In the 21st —

GLENN: What's amazing is how — how bogus this whole thing is. We were looking — what the world is striving for, they're starving for anything that is authentic. They are so sick of all of the make-believe bull crap. You can see it a million miles away. This shows you how out of touch the people in the Clinton campaign are. They are — even if Hillary said I didn't have anything to do with this song. The people who are behind Hillary, that they would think that you could pull this off. It is so far out of — out of their comfort zone. Does anybody think — remember when Hillary did that speech, and she's like, well, I just here because I'm tired. You're like, what was that?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They just think they can wear any mask and it will be okay. And people will buy it. Is.

JEFFY: So is this entitled cowgirl kankles or —

GLENN: Stop it. Go ahead.

(singing).

PAT: She's a living wife? Is she — you never see her and Bill together. Where do you get? And through it all she's a living wife. I never seen a couple more in love than Bill and Hill. What are you talking about?

(laughing).

PAT: Where does that come from?

(singing).

GLENN: Unbelievable. She fights for country and family. Like she fought for the — like she fought for the families of the Benghazi victims?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Like that — is that how she was fighting?

(singing).

PAT: This is so bad.

GLENN: It's hysterical.

PAT: Oh, man.

GLENN: It's hysterical.

JEFFY: Is this on the charts yet?

(singing).

PAT: Or if you drive a truck or not, because I know that has to be in one of them country songs. Trying to emulate —

GLENN: It's so bad. Whether you live in a red or blue state, it's 2016, let's get to the polls.

(laughing).

GLENN: It's awful.

(singing).

GLENN: There's some what, honchos —

PAT: There's hard —

GLENN: Hard choices.

PAT: That need to be made.

GLENN: Buy her book by the same name.

(laughing).

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. And there's hard choices to be made.

PAT: Oh.

(singing).

GLENN: Wait, stop. We need a leader who's tough and gritty.

PAT: Gritty.

GLENN: Not gritty, ready.

PAT: I thought it was ready.

GLENN: Because her deal is ready. We need a leader that's tough and ready.

PAT: Ready.

(singing).

GLENN: That's my final decision.

(singing).

GLENN: Stop. There was a great comment on the Facebook page last night. You have to read my Facebook comments on this. They are so funny. The Facebook comments came in. They were all observations like, notice whenever he says that she's — through it all she's a loving wife, they had to go back and find the pictures from like 1964.

(laughing).

PAT: You can't find them even together anymore.

GLENN: No, you have to go back to the Yale pictures.

JEFFY: They were just photographed in the Hamptons together not long ago, right?

PAT: Like a year ago on vacation?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Walking about the beach —

GLENN: Let's be honest. They're in their 60s.

JEFFY: I thought they looked okay. Hillary didn't cover up the kankles like he should have.

GLENN: Is to have.

(laughing).

GLENN: You have, I have to hand it to Hillary and any woman who will age gracefully in today's world. You know, stop trying with a plastic surgery and stop trying to look like you're 20 years old.

JEFFY: Joe Biden job Joe Biden.

GLENN: Joe Biden. He's honestly —

JEFFY: Nancy Pelosi.

GLENN: He's starting to look Asian. His skin is pulled back so much his eyes are starting to look Asian. Stop it. That's creeping me out. How vain do you have to be? Let's give Hillary some credit. She's not trying to act like she's 40 years old. She's in her 60s. Good for her. I met Steve Forbes' wife. We were having dinner and Steve Forbes' wife was sitting next to me. When you think of really, really rich, really, really rich people, and their wife, what do you expect their wife too long like?

PAT: Plastic.

GLENN: His wife looked like — like I remember — and I don't mean this to be rude, but she's an older lady now. She's in her 70s. She looked like my grandmother. And I love that. She wasn't trying to hide her gray hair. She hadn't had plastic surgery. She was a normal human being. And I have so much respect for her. I mean, I loved that. And you have to hand it to Hillary. She's not trying to make herself look, you know, younger.

PAT: No, but if she did, I think she'd be — there would be some notice of that and it would probably be embarrassing for her. There might be some ulterior motive not to do anything or she just may not want to. I don't know.

GLENN: Maybe she's comfortable in her own skin.

PAT: She might, yeah. She might be. She'd get some flack from the right if —

GLENN: She would but she wouldn't get it from the left.

PAT: Not at all.

GLENN: Nobody is saying a word about Joe Biden.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: That would be a joke. That should be a big joke everywhere.

JEFFY: Nobody said a word about Pelosi forever, right?

GLENN: Right. If — if — you know, you're doing a comedy show, you start to notice the things like Joe Biden eyes going — he has not a wrinkle in his face now. He's completely Botoxed out and his eyes are positively pulled back. You start to make fun of that. But nobody is saying anything about it. It just shows how in touch — take us out on the Hillary song.

(singing).

PAT: Aah — yeah. Hillary.

(singing).

PAT: She let four Americans die in Benghazi without lifting a finger. So did the entire administration. We need four more years of this. It's time to stand up for this woman who's so in love with the man who keeps cheating on her.

JEFFY: Can I get an amen.

GLENN: And if you don't like her, let's vote for Jeb.

(laughing).

GLENN: Bush or Hillary.

PAT: So awful.

GLENN: We should do a country song — we should do an R and B song for Jeb.

PAT: That would be —

GLENN: Because when I think of Jeb Bush, I think R and B. When I think of Hillary, I think of country music. When I think of Jeff Jeb, I think of R and B.

PAT: Let's do that. That let's do that. That would be fun.

(laughing).

GLENN: Whoo. Is that bad?

PAT: They're on to something there.

How California leadership is to blame for HORRIFIC wildfires

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

California's progressive policies emphasize ideology over lifesaving solutions. The destruction will persist until voters hold their elected officials accountable.

America is no stranger to natural disasters. But it’s not the fires, floods, or earthquakes that are the most devastating — it’s the repeated failures to learn from them, prevent them, and take responsibility for the damage.

My heart goes out to the families who have lost homes, cherished memories, and livelihoods. But if we’re going to help California rebuild and prevent future disasters, we need to confront some uncomfortable truths about leadership, responsibility, and priorities.

California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

While Californians continue to face heart-wrenching losses, those who have the power to enact change are mired in bureaucracy, regulation, and ideologies that do nothing to protect lives or preserve the land. The result? A state that keeps burning, year after year.

Where did all the water go?

We all know that water is essential to life. When NASA searches for signs of life on other planets, it looks for water. Yet, California has spent decades neglecting its water infrastructure. The state hasn’t built a new major reservoir since 1979 — over 40 years ago. Back then, California’s population was roughly half what it is today. Despite massive population growth, the state’s water storage capacity has remained frozen in time, woefully inadequate for current needs.

Moreover, billions of gallons of rainwater flow straight into the ocean every year because no infrastructure exists to capture and store it. Imagine how different things could be if California had built reservoirs, aqueducts, and desalination plants to secure water for its dry seasons.

Water is life, but the state’s failure to prioritize this essential resource has put lives and ecosystems at risk.

Misplaced priorities and critical leadership failure

This neglect of critical infrastructure is part of a larger failure of vision, and in California, the consequences of that failure are on full display.

Consider the progressive leadership in Los Angeles, where the mayor cut the fire department’s budget to fund programs for the homeless, funneling money to NGOs with little oversight. While helping the homeless is a worthy cause, it cannot come at the expense of protecting lives and property from catastrophic fires. Leadership must put safety and well-being over political agendas, and that’s not happening in Los Angeles.

The same misplaced priorities extend to environmental policies. Progressive leaders have blocked sensible forest management practices, prioritizing dead trees over living creatures. They reject controlled burns, forest thinning, and other commonsense measures, bowing to the demands of activists rather than considering real solutions that would protect those they govern.

California’s wildfire crisis is, in many ways, a man-made disaster. Yes, factors like Southern California’s dry climate, strong Santa Ana winds, and little rain play a role, but the biggest contributing factor is poor land management.

The forests are choked with dry brush, dead trees, and vegetation that turn every spark into a potential inferno. The crisis could have been mitigated — if only the state had made forest management and fire prevention a higher priority.

Finland and Sweden, for example, understand the importance of maintaining healthy forests. These countries have perfected the art of clearing underbrush and thinning trees sustainably, turning potential fire fuel into biomass energy. This approach not only reduces the risk of wildfires, but it also creates jobs, boosts the economy, and improves the ecosystem. And yet, California — ironically, in the name of environmentalism — continues to ignore these solutions that would protect both the environment and its residents.

We need to stop pretending that something as devastating as the Palisades and Eaton fires are just “part of life” and hold leaders accountable.

Insurance rules put California residents at risk

California faces another major and often overlooked liability when it comes to natural disasters: insurance.

California’s ongoing disasters make the state an uninsurable risk. Insurance companies are pulling out because the odds of widespread devastation are just too high. This creates a vicious cycle: With private insurers gone, the government steps in to subsidize high-risk areas. This enables people to rebuild in fire-prone zones, perpetuating the destruction. The solution isn’t more government intervention; it’s better decision-making.

This doesn’t mean abandoning people to their fate, but we must address the root of the problem: California’s inadequate disaster preparedness and poor land management. If the state continues to resist commonsense solutions like forest thinning, controlled burns, and better zoning laws, no amount of insurance or government assistance will ever be enough to mitigate the losses. The cycle will repeat until the costs — financial and human — become unbearable. It’s time to stop pretending the risk isn’t real and start making decisions that reflect the reality of California’s landscape.

What’s the solution? California’s government needs to put its people over harmful political agendas that put its residents at risk. Start by managing your forests. Implement controlled burns, remove dead trees, and clear underbrush.

But how you vote matters. California’s progressive policies have focused on political correctness and ideology instead of practical, lifesaving solutions. Until voters hold leaders accountable, the cycle of destruction will persist.

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

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

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

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement? 

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?