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

Subversion of a President Is Not Exposing Government Overreach

June 07, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Reality Winner is a name you're going to hear quite often over the next few months, if not years. This is the woman charged with taking top secret documents and giving them to the media. She's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, but the real comparison is to Hillary Clinton.

"She's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden did or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong, so he exposed it to the world," Mike Broomhead said Wednesday, filling in for Glenn.

The reality is that Reality subverted the president of the United States --- and politics should have nothing to do with this story going forward. Good luck with that.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

MIKE: All right. It is the Glenn Beck Program. We're talking about Reality Winner. That is her name. It's a name you're going to be hearing quite often, I'm sure, over the next month, probably year or so, as this is the woman that has been charged as the White House leaker. Someone that has been charged with taking top secret documents. Removing them from the White House and giving them to the media.

Now, she's going to be compared to Edward Snowden, when she should be compared to Hillary Clinton. And what I mean by that is, Hillary wasn't trying to subvert anyone. But what she did was so negligent, and it was the same act. It's just that Hillary did it digitally. I wish that point could be -- if that point could have been made to the American people during the election better, it would have been much worse for her. There is no difference -- and I guess it's a generational thing. You know, I'm 50 years old. So for me, a hard piece of paper being taken out of a room where it's not supposed to be removed from, you can see the crime in that. Sending an email over an unsecured server versus a secured server, for someone that's 50 years old, I don't know what that means. I know that makes me sound old. But it doesn't resonate with me. With young people who have never lived without tablets or smartphones or devices where they do business online, where there's paperless everything, you realize, A, there's not much privacy on those devices. You're giving away your privacy. You're being watched by everyone. I mean, just try to buy something online. Go to Amazon one day and look for a product. And the next day, when you open your Facebook page, the advertisement for that product shows up magically on your Facebook page.

I mean, obviously they're watching what you're doing. But when it comes to a crime like this, somebody explain to me the difference. I would love to have an expert try to explain that way.

That what Hillary Clinton did was no different than what this girl did, except she didn't give it to the press. She was emailing it to other people on unsecured servers. She took documents that were classified and put them in an unclassified place. That's illegal. That's where the comparison should lie with this Reality Winner. But more importantly, where she's not anything like Edward Snowden as far as we know. Whether you condone what Snowden or you didn't, he said he thought he saw something wrong. The government was doing something wrong thing. So he exposed it to the world.

What she is doing is subverting a specific person. She is working the White House, and she is subverting the president of the United States. If you go to her Twitter account, some of the things she's tweeted out have been horrible things about people. And so there were -- there were a few tweets. So on Glenn Beck's -- on his Twitter page -- if you go to Glenn Beck -- if you follow Glenn, @GlennBeck, or you go to GlennBeck.com, the poll asks, which of the tweets was her most troubling?

The one in the lead right now is being white is terrorism. Because she did tweet that out. She tweeted out @KanyeWest, that he should make a T-shirt that being white is terrorism.

The one that's in last place is calling the president foul names. Because she did. She called him all kinds of stuff. The tangerine-in-chief and stuff like that. The other two -- the other tied close to first place was the one I thought was the worst, was when the Iranians were tweeting out about the Americans and weapons, she tweeted back to the Iranians that if the president, with a derogatory term, starts a war or declares war -- which she must not know her Constitution because the president can't do that, but if the president declares war, there are people in America, like her, that will stand with the Iranians. How does that woman get and maintain a security clearance? That's the one I chose as the most egregious. And then there's also one in there about the attorney general being a confederate, which, again, is just name-calling nonsense. But if you want to vote on that. You can go to GlennBeck.com. You can find the story there. Or you can go to Glenn Beck. And it's pretty easy. Then you can see the vote total and how it's gone and up what the percentages are.

To be honest with you, this girl deserves to be punished. She is subverting the American government. And it's funny how people left and right are asking such silly questions. I have a close friend, I think I mentioned yesterday on the show, my friend who I grew up with, he's like a brother to me, but he's so far left of me that it's impossible to have conversations sometimes. And he gave the caveat that if she did something wrong, she should be punished. But -- then there was the big "but," was, but why are people more concerned about what she did than the information that she put out there? And I laughed out loud by myself at that.

Are you kidding?

What was the mantra when the evidence was out there by the Russians about Hillary Clinton and her time as Secretary of State? And this great firewall between her office as Secretary of State and the foundation in which she started, where she said there would be no interaction. And then we found out that there was not only interaction, there was collusion. There were people that couldn't get a meeting -- and that wasn't a Saudi prince. But it was a government official, I think, for the Middle East, who couldn't get a meeting through proper channels with the Secretary of State. So they reached to Huma Abedin, through the foundation, who said, this guy is a big donor to the foundation, trying to get a meeting with the Secretary. Can't do it through the other channels. Can you help? Huma Abedin replies, we've sent some dates, let us know which one works.

The most egregious was the Haiti relief. And there's the documents that show that if you were friends of Bill Clinton or you were a big donor to the Clinton Foundation, you were directed to people in the State Department that would get you expedited contracts or, you know, at least get your applications in to get the relief contracts to do the work that would be paid for by our State Department, by our government. And it was said in those emails, if they aren't either, A, a big donor or, B, a friend of Bill, they're to be directed to a website to submit an application.

All of that stuff was out there. Was anybody on the left saying, we need to worry about the information and not worry so much -- so let's worry about the information in both cases. What is it that Reality Winner put out there? Reality Winner released a document that said -- an NSA document saying that the Russians tried to hack into the elections in a few places. They sent out phishing emails, trying to get election officials to give them information, and they directly tried to hack into some of the voting poll places -- or, polling software. And there's no evidence that they were successful on any level.

So the uproar was, of course, oh, my gosh, look what's going on. And I said two thing. Number one, who was president when that happened? It wasn't Donald Trump. He was running for president then. Why would the Russians help Trump?

But more importantly, if you're going to blame the White House for this, why would President Obama help Donald Trump? Because that's what happened here. It was under his administration that these things were going on. So she's releasing documents that this happened. That they tried to get in.

So okay. Let's look at the reality of that. Let's say that the smoking gun is that the Russians tried to hack into the American election system. They were unsuccessful. What is the big -- what's the big story there to be told?

So you compare that with the okay, now let's pay attention to the evidence against Hillary Clinton, where she had a server. Don't we all? I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. I think everybody keeps a private server for their email corporation and their business in their bathroom, right? We all do that. We all set up a private server at our house and put it in the bathroom. And then when we become -- when we get investigated, our people pick and choose which emails are going to be turned over, when the law says you turn them all over. And she said, the other ones were just recipes and yoga stuff. Okay.

First of all, no way you do yoga and no way you cook. So let's just dispense with that right away. And the fact of the matter is all of those emails should have been turned over. If you taint the water by mixing your personal emails with your business emails, they all get turned over. It didn't happen. Then she sanitizes -- she has someone sanitize and completely dismantle that server that took months and months and months and months to get information off of. And yet, nobody wants to scream about that.

Reality Winner stole documents and gave them to the press -- to the press to subvert the American president. Whether you like Donald Trump or you don't like Donald Trump, if you respect the system, how is this not a huge crime? It is. It is absolutely a huge crime.

A nation unravels when its shared culture is the first thing to go

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Texas now hosts Quran-first academies, Sharia-compliant housing schemes, and rapidly multiplying mosques — all part of a movement building a self-contained society apart from the country around it.

It is time to talk honestly about what is happening inside America’s rapidly growing Muslim communities. In city after city, large pockets of newcomers are choosing to build insulated enclaves rather than enter the broader American culture.

That trend is accelerating, and the longer we ignore it, the harder it becomes to address.

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world.

America has always welcomed people of every faith and people from every corner of the world, but the deal has never changed: You come here and you join the American family. You are free to honor your traditions, keep your faith, but you must embrace the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. You melt into the shared culture that allows all of us to live side by side.

Across the country, this bargain is being rejected by Islamist communities that insist on building a parallel society with its own rules, its own boundaries, and its own vision for how life should be lived.

Texas illustrates the trend. The state now has roughly 330 mosques. At least 48 of them were built in just the last 24 months. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex alone has around 200 Islamic centers. Houston has another hundred or so. Many of these communities have no interest in blending into American life.

This is not the same as past waves of immigration. Irish, Italian, Korean, Mexican, and every other group arrived with pride in their heritage. Still, they also raised American flags and wanted their children to be part of the country’s future. They became doctors, small-business owners, teachers, and soldiers. They wanted to be Americans.

What we are watching now is not the melting pot. It is isolation by design.

Parallel societies do not end well

More than 300 fundamentalist Islamic schools now operate full-time across the country. Many use Quran-first curricula that require students to spend hours memorizing religious texts before they ever reach math or science. In Dallas, Brighter Horizons Academy enrolls more than 1,700 students and draws federal support while operating on a social model that keeps children culturally isolated.

Then there is the Epic City project in Collin and Hunt counties — 402 acres originally designated only for Muslim buyers, with Sharia-compliant financing and a mega-mosque at the center. After public outcry and state investigations, the developers renamed it “The Meadows,” but a new sign does not erase the original intent. It is not a neighborhood. It is a parallel society.

Americans should not hesitate to say that parallel societies are dangerous. Europe tried this experiment, and the results could not be clearer. In Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, entire neighborhoods now operate under their own cultural rules, some openly hostile to Western norms. When citizens speak up, they are branded bigots for asserting a basic right: the ability to live safely in their own communities.

A crisis of confidence

While this separation widens, another crisis is unfolding at home. A recent Gallup survey shows that about 40% of American women ages 18 to 39 would leave the country permanently if given the chance. Nearly half of a rising generation — daughters, sisters, soon-to-be mothers — no longer believe this nation is worth building a future in.

And who shapes the worldview of young boys? Their mothers. If a mother no longer believes America is home, why would her child grow up ready to defend it?

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world. If we lose confidence in our own national identity at the same time that we allow separatist enclaves to spread unchecked, the outcome is predictable. Europe is already showing us what comes next: cultural fracture, political radicalization, and the slow death of national unity.

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Stand up and tell the truth

America welcomes Muslims. America defends their right to worship freely. A Muslim who loves the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and wants to raise a family in peace is more than welcome in America.

But an Islamist movement that rejects assimilation, builds enclaves governed by its own religious framework, and treats American law as optional is not simply another participant in our melting pot. It is a direct challenge to it. If we refuse to call this problem out out of fear of being called names, we will bear the consequences.

Europe is already feeling those consequences — rising conflict and a political class too paralyzed to admit the obvious. When people feel their culture, safety, and freedoms slipping away, they will follow anyone who promises to defend them. History has shown that over and over again.

Stand up. Speak plainly. Be unafraid. You can practice any faith in this country, but the supremacy of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian moral framework that shaped it is non-negotiable. It is what guarantees your freedom in the first place.

If you come here and honor that foundation, welcome. If you come here to undermine it, you do not belong here.

Wake up to what is unfolding before the consequences arrive. Because when a nation refuses to say what is true, the truth eventually forces its way in — and by then, it is always too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Shocking: Chart-topping ‘singer’ has no soul at all

VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

A machine can imitate heartbreak well enough to top the charts, but it cannot carry grief, choose courage, or hear the whisper that calls human beings to something higher.

The No. 1 country song in America right now was not written in Nashville or Texas or even L.A. It came from code. “Walk My Walk,” the AI-generated single by the AI artist Breaking Rust, hit the top spot on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart, and if you listen to it without knowing that fact, you would swear a real singer lived the pain he is describing.

Except there is no “he.” There is no lived experience. There is no soul behind the voice dominating the country music charts.

If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

I will admit it: I enjoy some AI music. Some of it is very good. And that leaves us with a question that is no longer science fiction. If a machine can fake being human this well, what does it mean to be human?

A new world of artificial experience

This is not just about one song. We are walking straight into a technological moment that will reshape everyday life.

Elon Musk said recently that we may not even have phones in five years. Instead, we will carry a small device that listens, anticipates, and creates — a personal AI agent that knows what we want to hear before we ask. It will make the music, the news, the podcasts, the stories. We already live in digital bubbles. Soon, those bubbles might become our own private worlds.

If an algorithm can write a hit country song about hardship and perseverance without a shred of actual experience, then the deeper question becomes unavoidable: If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

What machines can never do

A machine can produce, and soon it may produce better than we can. It can calculate faster than any human mind. It can rearrange the notes and words of a thousand human songs into something that sounds real enough to fool millions.

But it cannot care. It cannot love. It cannot choose right and wrong. It cannot forgive because it cannot be hurt. It cannot stand between a child and danger. It cannot walk through sorrow.

A machine can imitate the sound of suffering. It cannot suffer.

The difference is the soul. The divine spark. The thing God breathed into man that no code will ever have. Only humans can take pain and let it grow into compassion. Only humans can take fear and turn it into courage. Only humans can rebuild their lives after losing everything. Only humans hear the whisper inside, the divine voice that says, “Live for something greater.”

We are building artificial minds. We are not building artificial life.

Questions that define us

And as these artificial minds grow sharper, as their tools become more convincing, the right response is not panic. It is to ask the oldest and most important questions.

Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of freedom? What is worth defending? What is worth sacrificing for?

That answer is not found in a lab or a server rack. It is found in that mysterious place inside each of us where reason meets faith, where suffering becomes wisdom, where God reminds us we are more than flesh and more than thought. We are not accidents. We are not circuits. We are not replaceable.

Europa Press News / Contributor | Getty Images

The miracle machines can never copy

Being human is not about what we can produce. Machines will outproduce us. That is not the question. Being human is about what we can choose. We can choose to love even when it costs us something. We can choose to sacrifice when it is not easy. We can choose to tell the truth when the world rewards lies. We can choose to stand when everyone else bows. We can create because something inside us will not rest until we do.

An AI content generator can borrow our melodies, echo our stories, and dress itself up like a human soul, but it cannot carry grief across a lifetime. It cannot forgive an enemy. It cannot experience wonder. It cannot look at a broken world and say, “I am going to build again.”

The age of machines is rising. And if we do not know who we are, we will shrink. But if we use this moment to remember what makes us human, it will help us to become better, because the one thing no algorithm will ever recreate is the miracle that we exist at all — the miracle of the human soul.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Is Socialism seducing a lost generation?

Jeremy Weine / Stringer | Getty Images

A generation that’s lost faith in capitalism is turning to the oldest lie on earth: equality through control.

Something is breaking in America’s young people. You can feel it in every headline, every grocery bill, every young voice quietly asking if the American dream still means anything at all.

For many, the promise of America — work hard, build something that lasts, and give the next generation a better start — feels like it no longer exists. Home ownership and stability have become luxuries for a fortunate few.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them.

In that vacuum of hope, a new promise has begun to rise — one that sounds compassionate, equal, and fair. The promise of socialism.

The appeal of a broken dream

When the American dream becomes a checklist of things few can afford — a home, a car, two children, even a little peace — disappointment quickly turns to resentment. The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. Debt lasts longer than marriages. The cost of living rises faster than opportunity.

For a generation that has never seen the system truly work, capitalism feels like a rigged game built to protect those already at the top.

That is where socialism finds its audience. It presents itself as fairness for the forgotten and justice for the disillusioned. It speaks softly at first, offering equality, compassion, and control disguised as care.

We are seeing that illusion play out now in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani — an open socialist — has won a major political victory. The same ideology that once hid behind euphemisms now campaigns openly throughout America’s once-great cities. And for many who feel left behind, it sounds like salvation.

But what socialism calls fairness is submission dressed as virtue. What it calls order is obedience. Once the system begins to replace personal responsibility with collective dependence, the erosion of liberty is only a matter of time.

The bridge that never ends

Socialism is not a destination; it is a bridge. Karl Marx described it as the necessary transition to communism — the scaffolding that builds the total state. Under socialism, people are taught to obey. Under communism, they forget that any other options exist.

History tells the story clearly. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba — each promised equality and delivered misery. One hundred million lives were lost, not because socialism failed, but because it succeeded at what it was designed to do: make the state supreme and the individual expendable.

Today’s advocates insist their version will be different — democratic, modern, and kind. They often cite Sweden as an example, but Sweden’s prosperity was never born of socialism. It grew out of capitalism, self-reliance, and a shared moral culture. Now that system is cracking under the weight of bureaucracy and division.

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

The real issue is not economic but moral. Socialism begins with a lie about human nature — that people exist for the collective and that the collective knows better than the individual.

This lie is contrary to the truths on which America was founded — that rights come not from government’s authority, but from God’s. Once government replaces that authority, compassion becomes control, and freedom becomes permission.

What young America deserves

Young Americans have many reasons to be frustrated. They were told to study, work hard, and follow the rules — and many did, only to find the goalposts moved again and again. But tearing down the entire house does not make it fairer; it only leaves everyone standing in the rubble.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them. The answer is not revolution but renewal — moral, cultural, and spiritual.

It means restoring honesty to markets, integrity to government, and faith to the heart of our nation. A people who forsake God will always turn to government for salvation, and that road always ends in dependency and decay.

Freedom demands something of us. It requires faith, discipline, and courage. It expects citizens to govern themselves before others govern them. That is the truth this generation deserves to hear again — that liberty is not a gift from the state but a calling from God.

Socialism always begins with promises and ends with permission. It tells you what to drive, what to say, what to believe, all in the name of fairness. But real fairness is not everyone sharing the same chains — it is everyone having the same chance.

The American dream was never about guarantees. It was about the right to try, to fail, and try again. That freedom built the most prosperous nation in history, and it can do so again if we remember that liberty is not a handout but a duty.

Socialism does not offer salvation. It requires subservience.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.