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

Glenn Experiences Worst Interview of His Career With NPR

November 04, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Yesterday, Glenn had what he described as the most outrageous, unprofessional interview he's ever experienced in his entire career --- and he's had a lot of bad interviews. Regularly taken out of context and asked to rehash comments from years earlier, Glenn has become accustomed to navigating challenging interviews. However, the reporter from NPR, who also happens to be a journalism professor, came in with a clear, predetermined agenda.

RELATED: So, Angelina Jolie’s Interview With the FBI About Brad Pitt Was Longer Than Hillary’s

"He wanted to get even," Glenn said Friday on his radio program. "Because he disagrees with me. He thinks I'm a bad guy."

The final question posed by the reporter confirmed his biased agenda.

"You would not believe his last question. And I guarantee, if you hear it on NPR, he's going to leave one part of his question out . . . the most unprofessional thing I've ever experienced," Glenn said.

An edited version of the interview will likely be aired on NPR this weekend.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• How many toads will Glenn have to kiss?

• Why is it critical to reach outside our circles and talk to people?

• Why did NPR say the interview would actually be about?

• Did NPR conduct its research from 2006?

• What were Glenn's parting words to the reporter?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

Yesterday, I did absolutely -- I can't say I did it. I was asked to be interviewed by the most unprofessional interviewer I have ever experienced in my career. The most shameful display of hatred and destruction I have seen in my career. And I've done some pretty rough interviews.

I have been as -- the boys keep telling me every day, "Stop doing them, Glenn. Stop doing them."

I'm doing it because I feel we have to reach out, outside of our own circle. If we just continue to talk to each other, we're never going to make any progress because it will be us versus them. And I've got to find somebody -- I'm going to kiss a thousand toads, hoping that one of them will be a princess. And, you know what, all 1,000, all of them may be toads, but I am not giving up that there is somebody outside of our circle that feels exactly the same way we do, that this has got to stop.

PAT: Charlie Rose may have been a princess.

GLENN: I think he was. I think he was.

PAT: Or a prince. He might like that better.

GLENN: We'll see -- yeah. We'll see how that works out.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I don't expect any of them to have the same attitude with me after the election, if Hillary wins. I know. I know how they treated John McCain and everybody else on our side -- there's nobody -- unless you sell out your values and you become, what's his name, that Brooks or whatever his name is. Not Brooks.

PAT: David Brooks?

GLENN: Yeah, David Brooks. No, he's the left. The guy on the right who is always a conservative that flipped over to the liberal side and he still calls himself a conservative.

STU: David Brooks is the New York Times conservative --

GLENN: Yeah, okay. So it must be him.

STU: Yeah. Yeah. I think that's who you're thinking of.

GLENN: So -- so I'm not changing my principles. I'm not changing my policies. I'm trying to change my approach and be a better person. I said when I was on Megyn Kelly two years ago, I don't know what I would have done differently when I was on Fox.

Well, I still don't know. But I know what I didn't try was trying to watch every word to not say something inflammatory. Well, that's really hard. To be honest, to be clear, to know what the difference is between turning over the tables and being very, very clear and being inflammatory.

PAT: Plus, much of what they call inflammatory or hate speech was just telling the truth. And they just didn't want to hear it. And that's what pisses me off. Because we said -- we called Barack Obama what he was, and that's a Marxist. And that was perceived as racist and hateful. And it just -- he just was.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Marxist -- being a Marxist isn't a sign of hatred. It's not a sign of racism.

GLENN: Well, there's nobody asking --

PAT: It adheres to a set of policies that we don't agree with, and we called him out on it.

GLENN: Right. Right now, there's no evidence that Donald Trump is a racist. There's no evidence of that, but I have heard journalists --

PAT: In the past, there is. But...

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Okay. But that's, again -- the -- but you're not going to hear people grilled over calling him a racist. Even though, there's no real --

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: -- no real evidence of that.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: You're not going to hear anybody grilled on that on the right. Do you think, Stu?

STU: I was reading a review of Dr. Strange.

GLENN: Right. Okay.

(laughter)

GLENN: I mean, it's -- I mean, there are people who are saying those things who believe it. Those who don't. And you're having a conversation, trying to figure out who this guy is. Okay?

I take full responsibility for -- for my cavalier attitude on everything.

Anyway, I don't want to get back into this.

Here's where I'm headed: I'm doing this interview with NPR. And they want to talk about the future of, "Can we come together?" The future of the conservative movement. That's what I'm sold.

They start --

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. They start with, you know, something that I said ten years ago.

JEFFY: Ten years ago.

GLENN: That was clearly explainable. He has the tape. I explain it. He has the tape. And he's like, "Well, let me take you back down." And it's exactly basically what I said. And it's all out of context.

And they then he asks, you know, so where have you been, you know, since you were on Megyn Kelly?

GLENN: And I said, "Well, I've helped raise $11 million to help the Syrian and Iraqi Christians to escape ISIS. We have held the largest peace march in Birmingham, Alabama, since -- since Martin Luther King."

JEFFY: I've employed hundreds of people here in the United States of America. What have you been doing, WNYC professor?

GLENN: Stop.

So I did blow a gasket there.

(chuckling)

And so the last question he asked me -- now, tell me -- tell me how we move forward. If we don't allow people to say, "I take responsibility for everything I did and I've asked for forgiveness -- and there's a time when you say, "Okay. I'm done asking for forgiveness. We have to move forward." And if it's not on -- if you need to keep dwelling on it, it's on you. You've got to let it go.

I've asked for forgiveness. I've been very public about it. Now it's on you. You have to move past it. And if you can't and you keep trapping somebody in the same place -- if we keep doing this -- if there's somebody with a change of heart and they really have a change of heart and we continually say, "No, they're a bad person." Well, then, that's on us. Watch them. And watch the fruits of their labors.

What are they actually doing?

Okay. This is what he said to me.

He said, "So this is -- and I'm paraphrasing. "This is a big show. I mean, you're an actor, and you just say things for show. You've said you're a rodeo clown." Blah, blah. Isn't this just a way for you to make more money and grab a new audience, and isn't this all just for show? And, by the way, I consider that a rhetorical question."

(laughter)

STU: Wow.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: I consider that a rhetorical question.

This is a journalism professor.

STU: Huh.

GLENN: I didn't know that at the time.

STU: It's a great point on -- that you've made a million times about the way we are teaching our young journalists.

GLENN: What are those -- what are those kids learning in his class? That's a question -- and I'll bet you, they edit out, "I consider that a rhetorical question." I can guarantee you they edit that out. I said nothing. I let it go for about a minute of silence.

And he said, "Mr. Beck." And I said, "Yes."

He said, "Do you have an answer?" And I said, "No, you said it was a rhetorical question."

(laughter)

JEFFY: You said it was rhetorical.

GLENN: It's unbelievable. Unbelievable.

PAT: And is that where it ended then?

GLENN: I said to him, "I hope that some day you can find in your heart a place where you can accept that people do change, people are trying to be better people."

(music)

JEFFY: You can count on that airing. Yeah, no kidding.

(music)

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Did he start -- it seems like he started researching this interview in 2006 and then stopped after that.

PAT: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. Anyway, let's not do what they do.

PAT: No, let's. Let's.

GLENN: No, let's not do what they do. No.

Featured Image: The Glenn Beck Program

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.