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

One of Glenn's Favorite Texans Exposes Blatant Hypocrisy of Judge's Voter ID Ruling

August 27, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Texas was blocked from enforcing the latest version of its voter ID law by a federal judge Wednesday.

In 2011, Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that the state’s voter ID law, which requires voters to have one of seven possible forms of ID, was discriminatory. The Texas state legislature modified the law to allow potential voters to bypass the photo ID by signing an affidavit and showing a bank statement, a utility bill or other forms of identification; however, Judge Ramos still ruled this week that the law “imposes burdens disproportionately” on black and Latino voters.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined radio on Friday to talk about the simple goal behind the Texas voter ID law and the history of the state’s years-long court battle to be able to enforce it.

“The goal was to prevent fraud in elections,” Paxton said, explaining the types of ID that can be used and how Texas lawmakers have tried to work with voters who struggle with this issue. “This idea of discrimination is false,” he said. “There’s no evidence of it.”

Glenn had one important question: “So is it true that this judge requires a photo ID to be able to get into her courtroom?”

Essentially every federal courtroom does require photo ID for entry, Paxton confirmed. “Apparently, that’s not discriminatory,” he said.

GLENN: One of my -- one of my favorite Texans is our Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. He has been the attorney general here in Texas since 2015. He won the election as the state's top law enforcement guy. And he is a champion of the Tea Party movement. Conservative principles.

I wanted him on today because Texas is under attack. The new voter ID bill has been overturned in the Texas Supreme Court. I think it was Supreme Court, was it not, Ken? Was it the Supreme Court?

KEN: No, this was a Corpus Christi district judge appointed by President Obama.

GLENN: Okay. So tell me what happened. Tell me what people are fighting, what you're fighting for, for the state of Texas, and what happened?

KEN: So let me give you a little background: This was passed in 2011. I was in the legislature, actually in the Texas house when we passed it.

The goal was to prevent fraud in elections. I know that's a controversial topic, to prevent fraud. But that's what we were trying to do.

And so we started requiring photo ID. We were allowed seven different photo IDs that people could use. If you couldn't get one or you couldn't afford one, we will give you one free. You can use all kinds of IDs, including driver's license, military IDs, concealed handgun. And then we have Texas IDs, you can use.

And so we've been using that successfully. There have been no cases that we know of where there's been discrimination in the elections. But despite that, this judge found our law discriminatory. And so that happened actually when Abbott was attorney general. So we took that up to the Fifth Circuit. We drew a fairly liberal panel. We lost. And we actually asked the whole court to hear it.

We ended up losing, 9-6. But the court gave us a roadmap to fixing it. They said, if you'll put an affidavit in there, allow people to come in and basically swear that they -- they couldn't get a photo ID and that they are the person they say they are, then your photo ID laws are good. So we did that. The legislature passed it. The governor signed it. And, unfortunately, this judge still said it's discriminatory.

GLENN: So is it true that this judge requires a photo ID to be able to get into her courtroom?

KEN: It is true. It's also true that the fifth circuit does as well. So almost every federal courtroom you go into, you have to show federal ID. Apparently, that's not discriminatory.

GLENN: Yeah. Did -- have you asked any of them? I mean, I'd love to hear the answer to that one. How is it not discriminatory?

KEN: Yeah. I guess they know. I mean, this isn't about discrimination. This is about fraud. And everybody knows that is the issue. And if you don't have photo ID, it allows more people to vote that shouldn't be voting. And that's the battle. That's the true battle. This idea of discrimination is false. Because there's no evidence of it. There was no evidence in the trial record of any discrimination. The Justice Department under Obama came to Texas looking -- you know, advertising, please, give us stories. Well, they couldn't find them.

GLENN: So who has standing in this case? Why does anybody have standing? If there's nobody who has an actual episode, who has standing?

KEN: That's a very good question. And yet, here we are. With our photo ID laws struck down. So this is something we are going to appeal. We believe the Fifth Circuit will uphold it, given what they already told us, and given the fact that we had the legislature change the law to satisfy them. And, look, I didn't want to change the law. But it was a relatively minor change. And it was still leave us with a really solid photo ID law and allow us to prevent fraud. But, again, it will have to go back up to fifth circuit to hopefully get the right result.

GLENN: Ken, I don't think -- I mean, I think -- I wasn't really actually a -- that was an honest question. Who has standing? Who is funding this? Who is suing the state? How is this being brought to the front of the court every time?

KEN: It's just private plaintiffs who sue and claim discrimination. It's -- it's -- it's -- it's -- and, again, you ask a great question. Because if there is no actual harm, how can this be struck down? And the other thing you need to think about -- I mean, this is a duly enacted law. The Texas legislature. I mean, this had to go through all kinds of voting and people debating. And we -- we have a federal judge that just steps in and says, sorry, you can't do that. I'm taking over your legislature, basically.

GLENN: So, Ken, where are we headed?

KEN: Well, I still think we're going to be successful. Because I think the Fifth Circuit gave us clear guidelines on the part that they were concerned about. And we addressed that. And if -- if that didn't do it, then photo ID can't exist, for some reason.

GLENN: So Bill and I -- Bill O'Reilly and I were just having a conversation about what's happening with the statues around the country. And we need to have a -- an actual conversation. There -- you know, if you were in the hierarchy of the Confederacy, you knew exactly what was going on. But just like we didn't have a problem with the Germans. We had a problem with the Nazis. We didn't -- we didn't go and try to erase all Germans. We did try to take the Nazis out. And, you know, Germany went so far as to saying, you can't have any German symbols. No statues of any of these guys. No matter where they were, you're a Nazi. You're a Nazi. You're out.

The Confederacy, if you read the Confederate constitution was not about state rights. It was about slavery. Period.

Those statues like Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was the -- you know, a great general. Yeah, he also started the Klan. Those things need to be talked about. And we need to find the right way to deal with our history.

But we are now seeing violence and people going like it's Saddam Hussein and putting nooses around necks and pulling them down. What is -- what is the state of Texas thinking about all of this?

KEN: So, you know, we haven't had a lot of controversy about it. I know that UT took some down in the middle of the night. Took some statues down.

I always think -- I think you've sort of hit the nail on the head. I think discussion and debate about this is a good thing, rather than necessarily doing it in the middle of the night. A decision made by a few people. Because, again, this is our -- it is our history. Bad or good. And hiding it doesn't really -- I don't think is very effective. I think knowing about it, understanding it, and looking to the future and deciding, you know, what -- what was good about our history and what was bad about our history, I think that's really the only way we can learn. If we hide it and bury it, I don't know that that really accomplishes anything.

GLENN: No. It festers. It festers. As a Texas attorney general, can you explain to those who might be listening, who think that, you know, free speech is great, up until a point. That we have to defend the people's right to have abhorrent points of view. It doesn't mean that they can act on all of those things. But they have a right to say things that are despicable in our -- in our thought.

In fact, those are the only kinds of -- that's the only kind of speech that ever needs protecting.

KEN: No, I totally -- you've got it. The foundation of our country was built on the First Amendment. Both religious freedom and free speech -- free political speech. And, you know, if we start censoring certain people, then the question is, where does it stop?

You know, you can't go into a movie theater and yell fire and create chaos and -- and harm to people. But beyond that, I mean, we -- we fought -- we had people die to protect people's right to say really bad, horrible things. And that's really what's made our country great. People can believe whatever they want to believe and they can still live here.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, you just said you can't go into a movie theater and cry fire. But here's Nancy Pelosi yesterday. I want to get your opinion on this.

NANCY: -- in denying that organization, their free speech rights. Because the Constitution does not say that a person can shout -- yell "wolf" in a crowded theater.

GLENN: So we know you can't cry fire, but can you cry wolf in a crowded movie theater?

KEN: Well, I might argue you could. Because I don't think people really believe there's a wolf.

PAT: Wolf!

GLENN: Yeah. I'm going to a movie tonight, and I'm going to have my wife tape it. And I invite everybody to go into their crowded movie theater tonight and just yell wolf and see what happens. Because I don't think anybody is going to beat it to the door.

KEN: Yeah.

GLENN: Maybe it's just me.

Last question, how is your wife? Because I like your wife much more than I like you.

KEN: Well, that is a comment -- I hear that commonly.

GLENN: I know.

KEN: She's doing great. She's actually considering a run for Texas Senate in Collin and Dallas County.

GLENN: Really? When is she coming to the studio? And she has to bring her musical instrument. I think she plays guitar, right?

KEN: Yes. She plays guitar and the piano. But, yeah, she'll be happy to come.

GLENN: No, I'd be happy to have her.

KEN: She probably -- she hasn't announced. But she may do that next week. So may be a good time to talk to her.

GLENN: Yeah. That would be great. That would be great. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Ken, thanks so much. Thanks for your hard work, and thanks for standing up for what is right. We know you have a tough job. God bless.

KEN: Hey. Thank you for having me on. Have a great day.

GLENN: You bet.

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

  • 45th in GDP Per Capita
  • 44th in Employment
  • 42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.

'MAD AS HELL': Here's what happened with the Epstein Files and what's next

Andrew Harnik / Staff, SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Jeffery Epstein's despicable low-life clients escape justice yet another day.

If you followed last week's commotion surrounding the release of the Epstein Files closely, you likely came away from the situation feeling frustrated and confused. Many anticipated the full release of Epstein's damning evidence, with names and details that would bring the hammer of justice down on those who indulged their wicked desires on that infamous island. Instead, we were dealt another disappointment, vexed once more by the swamp creatures Trump swore to destroy.

Many have turned their frustration towards the ensemble of new media representatives, including Glenn's friend and BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler, who was among those chosen to break the story. But don't shoot the messenger, if you take a moment to hear Wheeler's side of the story as Glenn did on radio, it's clear that the party at fault is the same enemy we've been fighting the whole time: the Deep State.

While Trump has won back-to-back victories during his first few weeks in office, he hasn't even been president for two months yet. It should come as no surprise that the swamp is still full of monsters, and they are starting to fight back. The events surrounding the release of the Epstein Filesprove there is still a lot of work left to do.

What happened?

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

To fully understand last week's events, we need to go back to an interview Trump's new attorney general, Pam Bondi, did with Fox on Wednesday, February 26th. On the night of the 26th, Bondi sat down with Fox News host, Jesse Watters, where she first announced that the next day, Thursday the 27th, she would be releasing the long-awaited Epstein Files, and even made hints that the contents would be of interest, saying they would "make you sick."

The next morning, Liz Wheeler and other "new" media hosts were summoned to the White House, though they did not know why at the time. No mainstream reporters were present and Wheeler speculates that the purpose behind that was to deny them this story in retribution for Trump's poor coverage. Then Bondi and Kash Patel, the new director of the FBI, came in with the now-infamous binders, along with a letter Bondi had written to Patel and informed the reporters of the bad news. They told them that the binders contained what they had previously believed to be the full Epstein Files, until Bondi received information from a FBI whistleblower. This allegedly happened after her interview on Fox, and revealed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and the FBI had withheld large portions of the Epstein Files from both Bondi and Patel.

After this meeting, the reporters were let out of the White House where they were ambushed by the mainstream media. Believing that they were going to immediately break the news, the new media reporters smiled and waved, gloating their exclusive access to the story while their antiquated counterparts took photos. Then the new media reporters learned that the White House forbade them from breaking the news until 3:30 pm EST, to avoid Trump's conference with the UK Prime Minister from being focused solely on the Epstein Files story. This explains why Liz Wheeler and her fellow media representatives were silent for so long. It was a bait-and-switch that they never intended.

What did we learn?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

While initially this seems like a complete bust, there is new information we learned from this fiasco.

First, there was some new information in the binders, although a large portion of it was information we already knew. There was a copy of Epstein's Rolodex, essentially his contact list, which contained many of the same names we already knew had associated with Epstein in some capacity, though it's certainly not proof of any wrongdoing. The biggest reveal was a long list of known victims of Epstein and his degenerate client, although it was entirely redacted to protect the privacy of those on the list. This list was, allegedly, what Bondi was referring to on the Wednesday Fox interview, although Bondi's exact timeline is unclear and potentially suspicious.

The real takeaway from yesterday came from the letter Bondi sent Patel in response to the FBI leak. Not only did it prove our suspicions right, that this story is much deeper than we are being led to believe, but it reveals blatant betrayal within the government. The letter from Bondi orders Patel to knock some heads, get the real files, and compile a report highlighting who is hiding these files from Trump, Bondi, Patel, and the American people.

There are Deep State swamp creatures that are actively working against President Trump and his administration. Glenn likened this to aninternal Civil Warand encouraged Trump to take an axe to the whole system. We need to pull out this corruption root and stem.

What needs to happen next?

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The next step is learning what Kash Patel found when he started knocking heads. According to Bondi's letter, the full Epstein Files and Patel's report were due on her desk by 8:00 AM February the 28th. The American people need to know what he found and soon. We have waited long enough.

There also needs to be immediate and hard-hitting action taken against SDNY, the corrupt FBI agents, and whoever else seeks to undermine Trump's presidency. Really, this should not come as a surprise, Trump has been in office for less than two months. That is a very short time to completely uproot the Deep State which has been twisting its corruption around every branch of our government for the better part of a century.

This is the first major hiccup of Trump's second term, amid nearly two months of victory after victory, and if anything proves the validity of DOGE's work gutting the government. While we can't let this slide, now is not the time to abandon hope, now is the time to double down and demand answers.

DOGE's top 5 BIGGEST cuts

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump has only been in office for a month, and already, he seems to have accomplished more than most presidents do in their entire careers.

Nothing defines Trump's first month more than the newly established Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Equally controversial as it is popular, the department, headed by tech billionaire Elon Musk, has made it its mission to root out wasteful government spending. DOGE has already combed through a handful of agencies and eliminated billions of dollars of waste, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down anytime soon.

DOGE is part of Trump's initiative to curb runaway government spending and to start to chip away at the Fed's crushing debt. At the time this article was written, U.S. debt sat at over $36 trillion, with an estimated $1.9 trillion a year federal budget deficit. According to the U.S. debt clock, Musk and the DOGE crew have already saved more than $136 billion, and that number only keeps growing.

To help track DOGE's progress, we've assembled a list of their top five biggest cuts:

1. USAID

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

The United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, has been hit with the some of largest cuts out of any government agency and will potentially even be shut down. This comes after Musk and his team revealed theabsurd things USAID was funding, including a transgender opera in Colombia. The total cut came out to approximately $6.5 billion.

2. Department of Education

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

The Department of Education is another agency that faces extinction, much like USAID. The American school system has been found seriously lacking, with many students struggling to meet expectations despite the torrent of cash spent on education. Trump's new Secretary of Education pick, Linda McMahon, has sworn to turn the agency around and even oversee the closure of the department. DOGE has reportedly cut almost $1 billion in waste within the agency.

3. Institute of Educational Sciences

Steven Gottlieb / Contributor | Getty Images

The IES, or Institute of Educational Sciences, is tasked with tracking the academic progress of America's students and helping improve outcomes. The changes made by DOGE will not affect NAEP, also known as "The Nation's Report Card," and the College Scorecard, which tracks the spending, costs, and outcomes of universities. The agency was all but gutted by Musk's deep cuts, totaling $900 million.

4. Social Security Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

For years, we've speculated that the Social Security Administration was a colossal waste of resources, but after Elon Musk posted a screenshot from the SSA database showing that there was a significant number of people over the age of 100 that were still consideredalive by the agency, it seems our suspicions are proved true. It's no small wonder Musk was able to trim over $230 million from the SSA.

5. General Services Administration

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The GSA is the latest agency to be hit by the DOGE crew. The administration, which manages federal property and contracts, has started a massive "reduction in force" push, thinning the numbers of employees by a large margin. As of yet, upwards of $300 million have been cut by the once-bloated agency.