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

Unbelievable: Michelle Obama’s Target story has nothing to do with race and she knows it

December 18, 2014
Wilson

Writer

Yesterday Glenn reacted to Michelle Obama’s story of experiencing racism while shopping at Target. Turns out she’s told the same story before, only it doesn’t seem to have any racism in it at all. See Michelle Obama tell the story to David Letterman in quite a different way. Plus, Glenn gets a call from a woman claiming to be the sister of the person who offended Obama. Is she racist?

Watch the Letterman appearance below:

Below is a transcript of the segment:

GLENN: All right. Michelle Obama. We just played the audio. She was on David Letterman. She spoke about going to Target. She talked about meeting a short woman who was in the detergent aisle, and she said, nobody knew who I was. This woman didn't know who I was, asked if I could help, and get the detergent. She said the short woman then, you know, said, you didn't need to make it look that easy. So she had a good sense of humor. That's what she said on David Letterman about a year ago.

Now in "People" magazine when asked about the kind of racism they have to put up with -- the Obamas, you know, there in the White House. This is what she said. Can you read this, please?

JEFFY: I think people forget that we've lived in the White House for six years. Before that, Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the south side of Chicago who had his share of troubles catching cabs. I tell this story, I mean, even as the first lady, during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised. The only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf because she didn't see me as the first lady. She saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life, so it isn't anything new.

STU: Then the next line is Barack talking about race as well.

JEFFY: There is no black male my age who is a professional who hasn't come out of a restaurant waiting for their car and somebody didn't hand them their car keys.

STU: So it's all about race all around. This is -- obviously she's telling this as a racial story.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Donna is on the phone. She's a fan of Pat and Stu. She called the Pat & Stu Show yesterday. And we have her on her words. So we don't have independent verification that her sister was the one that was in the aisle, that asked the first lady, could you help me with that box of detergent.

Donna, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Thank you.

GLENN: Why should we believe you, that this is your sister?

CALLER: Well, you know, just there's no reason, except there's no reason for me to call and tell y'all this except that it happened. And I'll tell you, the funny thing is, my sister didn't even know it was Michelle Obama until she was lying in the bed with her husband watching David Letterman and heard Michelle Obama tell the story. And she looked at her husband and said, that was me.

And he wouldn't believe her, except that Michelle Obama included that detail about, well, you didn't have to make it look so easy. That that's my sister. He knew she would have said that. And he said, oh, my word, it was you.

And that's how she found out that it was Michelle Obama. And then wrote her a little note. Now whether Michelle Obama ever got it, I don't know. She just said, hey, it was me in the store, and I probably didn't even say thank you.

What she didn't tell her, she told us, and we laughed about it. Probably one of the reasons why she didn't recognize her is because she didn't really look up. She was examining the detergent. She said, she reached down -- a real flowery scent, and this was for her son to take off to college. And she kept thinking, I'd really like a different one, but I'd hate to ask this woman to put this back and get another one too.

Michelle Obama told it accurately the first time, but she is twisting it now to make my sister out to be a racist. Now, her name isn't out there. But I just got furious on my sister's behalf. I can -- we have political differences, big time, but my sister is not a racist.

GLENN: Okay. You're a fan of Pat and Stu, so I'm assuming that you're a conservative.

CALLER: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: And your sister -- it's our understanding -- because I believe somebody on the Blaze spoke to your sister yesterday.

STU: I think Keith did.

CALLER: Yeah. I asked for her permission to give her number to y'all. Because I wasn't going to do that without her permission. She had no idea I had called. I thought she would be furious with me.

GLENN: Well, it's our impression that she was not. That she's actually very upset that she's being painted as a racist as well.

CALLER: Yeah, she's not happy about it because she knows how it happened, and Michelle Obama knows too because she wouldn't have told the story like she did on David Letterman, very close to the real event. Now time has passed and it's a great story for her to, you know, make it into a race thing, which it is not.

And I just called to set the record straight because that infuriated me. I'm all about great race relations. I want to talk about it. I want to -- if I can help in any way, I want to help. But this is not helping. There's real racism out there that we could talk about. This is not real racism at all. Race didn't even come into play.

GLENN: Your sister voted for Obama twice?

CALLER: Oh, yes. Oh, yes. They are huge Obama fans. Which, you know, and I'm the one -- my brother-in-law works -- I won't say. The banter around the water cooler at that station was, hey, when that story broke, wasn't this your wife? And they were jabbing with him about it. Can you imagine if his wife came on Glenn Beck? He'd never hear the end of it.

GLENN: Here's the interesting thing, that station knows exactly what the story is.

CALLER: Oh, yeah. They won't play it though.

GLENN: But that is fascinating. That they have first-hand knowledge of who this person is, how it came down --

CALLER: Oh, yeah. When they found out about it on the David Letterman Show, of course, he went in the office laughing about it. You all won't believe this, but, you know, my sister ran into -- told the whole story. That's when the story broke. They knew exactly who it was. But you'll never hear about it over there, no.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Unbelievable.

CALLER: Yeah. But I don't appreciate anybody making someone else out to look like a racist, when clearly they are not, and she told the story honestly the first time. And it was fluky. I would love to be in on a conspiracy, believe me, because I just love you, Glenn. But there's nothing more to it.

I grew up there. And I went to high school with senators kids and diplomats. And we weren't a wealthy family by any stretch. But, you know, growing up in the area, it's not uncommon at all. Run into someone at the grocery store, that just happens, you know.

GLENN: Well, God bless you. I appreciate it. Say hello to your sister. I hope she ends up going on the record with the Blaze. We will tell the story as she tells it to us.

CALLER: Yeah. I wish she would.

PAT: Donna, I know the news department is trying to get in touch with her. They haven't had too much success. If you could assist in that, we would really appreciate it.

CALLER: Yeah, well, she teaches school during the day. She doesn't take off work for anything. You can get her in the afternoons. I just wanted to set the record straight. I hope she'll come on.

GLENN: Thank you, Donna, I appreciate it.

STU: Even go she doesn't come on, just text --

GLENN: Yeah. For the record. Let's set this record straight. It's obscene. In a country that's having the kind of race relations that we have right now, keep getting ratcheted up and ratcheted up, for the first lady to dig in her big basket of all the things, all the oppressions she's had to suffer suffered through, to come through and say, that's her story, when it's been told before, completely differently, and the person who asked her is an Obama supporter.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Times ten.

STU: I mean, how on earth do you leave this situation continuing to be an Obama supporter? How can you see the way they manipulate racial relations for their own benefit, when you're involved --

GLENN: How do you continue to work -- how do you continue to work at that news organization? How do you do that?

STU: I don't know.

GLENN: When it is your wife and everybody knows. And now it is your wife, and here's a story in "People" magazine, where she's changing history. Barack knows, you got to change our history. She's changing history. And it's your wife. And everybody in the office knows, that's your wife. Don't you have a little righteous indignation and say, guys, you either correct this story because this is about my wife. I know nobody knows this is about my wife. This is important. This is important. To me. To my wife. This hurts my wife. We're supporters. We have no axe to grind. This story needs to be corrected.

And if they don't, why wouldn't you walk. Do you have no credibility? Do you have no honor and integrity? Is there not a chivalrous bone in your body for your wife? How do you continue to work there?

STU: If they won't tell that story thank they actually have it through one of their employees, if they won't tell that story to protect them, how can you possibly work there? These people are willing to wreck your wife.

GLENN: Yeah, they're willing to let your wife go through a buzz saw. This isn't even a big story. So if they're willing to do this to your wife, so what, she's in a wood chipper. Oh, well. And you're willing to let your wife go through the wood chipper, when the chips are down, so to speak. When things are really important, how do you trust that you know what the news are S? How do you trust you are getting the truth?

STU: If you work at this particular establishment, you don't care about the truth.

GLENN: I disagree with that. I think these people are so -- they're so -- they've had to convince themselves of two things. One, either the ends justify the means. I think this is the deal. It wasn't that important of a story. Nobody knows. It's going to be gone. Why dig all this up. It will only put your wife in the spotlight, and you don't want that to happen. So they've just convinced themselves. Ends justify the means.

STU: Maybe. Let me ask you this: Donna is a caller. Our news department is making sure everything is buttoned up on this story. As of now, it's not a news story, it's just a caller. You listen to her. Do you believe her?

GLENN: Yes, I do.

STU: She sounds completely credible. That's not enough for a news story. It's an amazing thing. It doesn't sound like she has a huge axe to grind. She wants to protect her sister. That's a human instinct.

GLENN: And, you know what, because her sister -- this story is easy to verify. It's easy to verify once you have the names. It's easy to verify, does that person work there? Does that person do this? You're not going to say, and her husband works for this person at this network, because, I mean, who -- who has done that kind of thinking. And how would you know -- I mean, we very well could know that individual? Someone in our organization, I can guarantee you, knows that individual. So nobody sits there and makes that up.

STU: No. And she gave a lot of different details to the initial call. Sounds -- but, again, this is why you have a news organization.

GLENN: I know.

JEFFY: She even said that, I know her name isn't out there, but I was mad because I knew it was my sister.

GLENN: But her sister talking to the producers yesterday, talking to the news people yesterday, her sister said, she was mad. She's a supporter and everything else. But she's mad.

STU: Wouldn't you be?

GLENN: Yes. I would be.

STU: Especially because she's probably spent hundreds of hours defending these people. She's probably sat there with some conservative, her sister, around a Thanksgiving table and said, no, you're wrong about these people. That's not what they do. And now here she is a victim of it.

GLENN: Doing it to you.

STU: I mean, that is crushing. That's crushing.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

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.