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

Politicians need to stop treating Washington like 'Game of Thrones'

April 08, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Bush. Clinton. Bush. Clinton? Bush? The presidency has pretty much become a crown to be passed and forth between these two political families. Political dynasties have been created, and the establishment is fresh out of new ideas. Thankfully, there are still candidates who stand for something. People like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who have already announced their candidacies. Heck, even Elizabeth Warren stands for something - even if it's scary, scary big government. It's time to stop looking for an establishment candidate to keep doing the same old thing in D.C. and start looking to the candidates who stand for something real.

The second Republican now to throw their hat into the ring for 2016 is not really a Republican. One that I can support, it’s Sen. Rand Paul from Kentucky.

He announced at the Galt House in Louisville. In a not-so-subtle hint at what the campaign is going to be all about, he laid down the gauntlet. The man understands liberty. Set on the backdrop of a government bent on squeezing every last drop of liberty out of you, the American people, Sen. Paul hammered away at the excessive government and presented the path to real freedom in a clear and I think accessible way.

This is a very different politician, one that I think will speak to the young people in America. The rise of this type of candidate is long overdue. We’ve lived the Game of Thrones long enough. Honestly, if the establishment had their way, it will be a Jeb Bush versus Hillary Clinton election. I’ve talked to so many people who have said—in fact, I talked to a congressman today who said I will for the first time in my life skip the voting booth if that is the choice.

If you’re under 40, this choice would basically mean you don’t know what life without a Bush or a Clinton in office is today, and if either Jeb or Hillary actually win in 2016 and complete two terms, the US would have had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 36 of the previous 44 years, and that’s not counting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

Think of that. You’ll be 44. You’ll have no memory of a Bush or Clinton not being in the White House. That is a track record that Robert Mugabe would be jealous of, and it would continue for many more years to come because there is always the ever-so-yummy possibility of Chelsea running for office or one of the other Bushes. After all, Jeb’s son, George P. Bush, is one that everybody in the establishment is so excited about. He just won an election for land commissioner in Texas.

Without fail, the establishment plays the electability card against the Game of Thrones. They tell you your guy can’t win. They tell you ignore your values and vote for their guy because if you vote for their guy, whether it’s Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, it’s the only way you’re going to win. You can’t afford to have that other candidate in office, you know?

Both the Republicans and the Democrats fall for it every single time. How’s that working out for us? How is it having a progressive light Republican? But Glenn, we have to appeal to more people. Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, they’re too extreme. Really?

Is it just me that has noticed the Democrats have elected the most liberal senator in the history of Congress? Why is it we have to compromise on what we believe? A real question, if not now, when? And why not now? Why not now?

We have the winning message—freedom, liberty, charting your own course, keeping what you earn, unleashing the American dream, attacking the government waste and the Game of Thrones political machine that has been created. This is what Rand Paul was talking about today. Stand on those, and I’m telling you right now you’ll be standing in victory.

The establishment, the media, they want you to believe people like Sen. Paul cannot win. We saw the reaction when Ted Cruz announced. Look at the reaction today with Rand Paul. First headline, “Why Rand Paul Probably Can’t Win Republican Nomination.” “Can Libertarian-Leaning Rand Paul Really Win the GOP Nomination?” “Rand Paul is Losing His Father’s Base.” Really?

I don’t know if he can win or not. I really don’t know, but are we not going to try to elect somebody who believes in the Constitution and liberty and is not part of the establishment? It is hard to imagine the message of the Tea Party, the message of freedom, not resonating with people of all ages if you have the right banner carrier. I don’t know who the right banner carrier is. I have my personal preferences, but I’ll take any of these liberty candidates, any of them.

He has challenged every aspect of entrenched Washington politics. Watch a little bit from the speech today.

VIDEO

Sen. Paul: Congress will never balance the budget unless you force them to do so. Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment. I ran for office because we have too many career politicians. I believe it now more than ever. We limit the president to two terms. It’s about time we limit the terms of Congress.

You know, it’s amazing. What’s really amazing to me, as I am watching this on our monitor down here, I have all of the other networks on monitors that I can view in case there’s breaking news or anything. As I’m hearing Rand Paul talk about this, what is the lead story on FOX News this hour? The lead story with FOX News this hour was John McCain is going to run again for Senate in 2016.

Which one is the message that America needs? Yes, America was never meant to have career politicians. Rand Paul is a doctor. He spoke about it, and I love this. I stand with him. I absolutely believe this is one way to attack the entrenched politicians, stopping the leeches who suck the life out of every newbie that enters office in DC.

He also proposed a read-the-bill law. How this hasn’t passed already is beyond me. Every day Congress has to read, should read, supposed to read, but never does, the 1,000-page bills they propose. To revive the economy and struggling sectors like manufacturing, he said today he would dramatically lower the tax on American companies that keep profits here and not overseas. And here’s why I believe we have an opportunity to crush the failed progressive ideas. Look how he attacked education.

VIDEO

Sen. Paul: Those of us who have enjoyed the American dream must break down the wall that separates us from the other America. I want all our children to have the same opportunities that I had. We need to stop limiting kids in poor neighborhoods to failing public schools and offer them school choice. It won’t happen though unless we realize that we can’t borrow our way to prosperity. Currently, some $3 trillion comes into the US Treasury. Couldn’t the country just survive on $3 trillion? I propose we do something extraordinary—let’s just spend what comes in.

That is the way to frame both of those issues. In truth, poor kids are stuck in the worst failing schools. I lived in New York City. Democrats in New York City are clamoring for someone to give them choice. How about we give them an escape hatch? And what a great simple message, what do you say we just spend what we have and not a dime more? It’s pretty impossible to argue with that. Believe me, the Jeb Bushes of the world will.

He tackled the unconstitutional spying program.

VIDEO

Sen. Paul: Warrantless searches of America’s phones and computer records are un-American and a threat to our civil liberties. I say that your phone records are yours. I say the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business. Is this where we light up the phones?

The president created this vast dragnet by Executive Order, and as president, on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance.

I will tell you that you know I’m a fan of Ted Cruz, but this is a speech that made me get up off the couch. I was cheering for this speech. I think this is one of the better speeches I’ve heard any politician give in a very long time.

Even what people say is Rand Paul’s weakest area, foreign policy, he took it straight on and tackled it. Watch.

VIDEO

Sen. Paul: The enemy is radical Islam. You can’t get around it. And not only will I name the enemy, I will do whatever it takes to defend America from these haters of mankind. We must realize though that we do not project strength by borrowing money from China to send it to Pakistan. Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home.

It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting “death to America” in countries that receive millions of dollars in our foreign aid. I say it must end. I say not one penny more to these haters of America.

How do you argue with that? I don’t know. What is the left going to do with what is essentially an antiwar candidate? They’re going to say that he’s an isolationist, etc., etc. I’ve got questions on how he would fight ISIS and how he would fight the war, but I agree with all that. I don’t think he’s an isolationist. I hope he’s not.

I said it was a really good day when Ted Cruz announced he was running for president, and I say again today is a really good day as well. I have questions for Sen. Rand Paul just like I do for Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio. Here is who I don’t have any questions for: Jeb Bush. I know exactly who he is. I know who the establishment is, where they have taken us, and where they would continue to take us. No, thank you.

What do you say we don’t eat the liberty-minded politicians, we stand by and behind those for the Constitution, and we eat the progressive establishment candidates instead? Enough of Lindsey Graham. Enough of the Bushes. Enough is enough. I for one am looking forward to this Game of Thrones and replacing the establishment GOP.

And one other thing, I had a meeting today with all of the writers on TheBlaze to start outlaying our strategy for what our election coverage is going to be here at TheBlaze. I said we have to be the people that ask, “Why not? Why not?” I don’t really care if we’re not on the plane with Jeb Bush. I don’t really care. If he’s the establishment, if he’s the guy, go get your new someplace else because we’re going to be talking about something else, because I know exactly what will happen if that guy is elected. I’m not interested.

I do want to be on the plane with Ted Cruz. I do want to be on the plane with Rand Paul. I do want to be on the plane with Marco Rubio. I do want to be on the plane with Scott Walker, although I will tell you something is not right with Scott Walker. This again is just me, but something is not right with Scott Walker.

Either he is avoiding me, he’s avoiding this audience because he doesn’t want to be seen with you, or his staff is out-of-control incompetent. We have been trying to get an interview with him for what, almost two months. For some reason, we can’t get a single interview with him. That is highly unusual for somebody who is offering 15 minutes or an hour of time for a media empire that has a footprint of 50 million people.

Something is not right with Scott Walker. I don’t know what it is. We’ll follow the story. In the meantime, let’s all stand together with those who will stand by the Constitution. Let’s stand arm in arm. I’ll take anybody who will defend the Constitution over yet another Bush or Chris Christie in office.

Featured image courtesy of the AP

The double standard behind the White House outrage

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.

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.