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

Tonight's Florida Primary: Ann Coulter weighs in

January 31, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Ann Coulter called into the radio show today to discuss the Florida primary and what she expected to do down in the Sunshine State. What did she have to say? Read the full transcript of the interview below!

GLENN: Florida elections today and Ann Coulter is on the phone with us. Hello Ann.

COULTER: Hello Glenn Beck.

GLENN: What do you think is coming today.

COULTER: One thing I've noticed is the media seems to be encouraging raised expectations for Mitt Romney so if he wins by anything less than 15 points it will be declared a victory for Gingrich. And the upcoming caucuses if Romney loses a single one, wow, it's a Newt Gingrich bounce. I note that in that regard that an editorial is strongly encouraging these debates go on.

PAT: This Washington outsider Newt Gingrich is coming on so strongly right now with his brand new ideas that are complete separate from Washington. I love that about him. And I love the fact that the establishment, the Republican machinery is all behind Mitt Romney.

GLENN: There's really only one guy who can even make that claim, and even he is not an outsider, and it's Ron Paul. But at least

COULTER: Why wouldn't I say why isn't Romney the outsider.

GLENN: You're right.

COULTER: It isn't such a terrible thing. You do tend to choose politicians from politics. I think we saw in the choice of Republican candidates Herman Cain. Even when he was in right he was stuck for an answer. Yet and still don't go around calling yourself an outsider if you spent your entire life in Washington first as a congressman, and trading on your influence in Washington.

GLENN: So he's never had a real job.

COULTER: I guess there would be an assistant professor 30 years ago.

GLENN: I wouldn't call that a profession. He's a historian for Freddie and Fannie. There's the first line I cut. You need a historian. What is the hell is that?

COULTER: That was not a good answer.

STU: I find it amazing as they keep going to Gingrich as the antiestablishment guy. Here's a guy who voted for the Department of Education. And it's one thing and at least the fact that he was around to vote for the Department of Education's creation shows you

GLENN: Try this on for size. Here's a small government guy. Do you have the State Department audio. This is one of the most amazing pieces of audio I've heard from a Washington outsider that wants to return the power to the people.

COULTER: Hold every last

GLENN: Not that one. He sounds like the Taliban.

COULTER: Giving the conservative stress on the federalism as Rick Santorum has said if a state wants it can ban contraception. This focus on the federal government solutions is the federal government that created these problems and at least with a state it's easier for a state to modify. It's easier for states to see what other states have done, and how it worked out. You have more control over the officials you are electing to smaller area a town or governor or legislature. Which is why I find the comparison of Romney care, and Obama care so baffling other than it's generally the same subject area. And you can describe it to a politician's name to the word "care." One is constitutional, and one is unconstitutional.

GLENN: I would agree with you on that. Who thinks I don't care if it's a state or not, who thinks that they can actually fix it by having the state run it? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

COULTER: I think that the big issue on Romney care there isn't much any governor can do. The problem with the healthcare was created by the federal government and it can only be fixed by the federal government by repealing stuff.

GLENN: By reducing the size of the federal government.

COULTER: Right, and in particular the federal law requires hospitals to treat all comers. And Massachusetts was spending $1 billion a year, $1 billion on uncompensated medical costs so they are

GLENN: Wait a minute. Let me play devil's advocate here. So you're going to let vagrants die on the streets.

COULTER: I'm not going to say that the taxpayers is on the hook when they wander in to sleep off a drunk.

GLENN: What if they're really sick.

COULTER: I think in an ideal world what I would do, I don't have to have tax incentives to tax us less to begin. That's the world we're living with. For the tough cases let's fine I don't care if the federal government is going to pay for the tough cases. The federal government is going to set up poor people's hospitals. At that point we can pay for with the amount of money we're paying for the Department of Education now. But you don't wreck the whole system to deal with the hard cases.

GLENN: I think you go back to what the Ben Franklin did. You have people like Jon Huntsman. He built the Huntsman cancer institute, and you have people that build hospitals, and they can partner with the states or with corporations or whatever, and they get tax incentives for.

COULTER: Charitable hospitals.

GLENN: Let's not put all of the Catholic hospitals out of business. That's a different idea. I've not heard this anywhere.

COULTER: We have to rethink the State Department, and I have to said inn crease its size by 50%. To be able to have a truly professional modern high technology State Department.

GLENN: How are you feeling about an increase of the size of the State Department by 50%?

COULTER: That is raging against the machine in my part. But he has this tendency to give precise numerical figures when he's talking about his head. You have to increase it by 50%. I remember during 2007, and 2008 every month he was giving a different prediction of 80% chance Hilary will be the next President. And next the month Hilary's chances have fallen to 25%. And 25.4% of women have been raped in college.

STU: There's a lot of the things in his speech pattern. I think that the fundamental will file for bankruptcy if Newt Gingrich doesn't win the nomination. It's like is or the to this guy. Everything is a fundamental something.

COULTER: Now I'm having all these words are being stripped from my vocabulary, and I hear them, and it gives me a problem.

GLENN: A fundamental rash.

COULTER: Because frankly.

GLENN: Let me ask you this. What is the deal with the Sarah Palin's endorsement of Newt Gingrich.

STU: She hasn't officially endorsed.

PAT: Basically to all intents and purposes she has endorsed.

GLENN: What's up with that?

COULTER: It may be a disagreement on whether you think it's a good thing for this rancorous primary to continue, and whether that makes it more or less likely to defeat Obama in the fall. We've had 20 debates. I think this primary is quite a bit a nastier than others I've seen. I think it's going to hurt whomever, and Romney the eventual nominee. And I don't think it's a good thing for the debates to go. The lead up to the "New York Times" let the debates go on.

GLENN: It's crazy. We're cannibalizing ourselves. I'm not getting any new information out of these debates. Is anybody else?

STU: It's enough.

GLENN: Enough. All that's happening. Let these debates go on. Now let's have a rule that they can't talk about each other. They can talk about what they will do, and compare it to the Democrats, and Barack Obama, and you can do that. But I don't need to have them taking each other apart anymore. It really bothers me.

COULTER: Yes.

GLENN: They sound like a bunch of third graders.

COULTER: I dispute the aphorism that which does not kill you makes you stronger. Really you could gouge your eye out, you could live. Does that make you stronger?

GLENN: I don't think if it's self inflicted. That's probably why it doesn't apply here. But maybe it's just me.

COULTER: That seems to be the argument. The one who baffles me the most I reject the cynical explanations for people coming out on the other side. We may disagree, and particularly in the case of and the one I have the Thomas Sole. I think there's not a ray of light in the difference in our opinions and I respect him, and I've been baffled by his columns in favor of Newt Gingrich. And he has I think it's today complaining that Romney is lying about or being deceptive. I don't think he uses the word lie. And Newt does. And the ethics complaint. Unquestionably Gingrich resigned. The ethics reprimand was a lighter sentence. That was a majority House of Representatives. They were trying to protect their leader. There were a lot of the honorable Republican including Porter Goff who was the head of the ethic committee who thought that a reprimand was deserved. It was two years later that Gingrich resigned in disgrace because he was having a long term affair in the middle of Republicans having an unmistakable argument between Democrats and Republicans and the Democrats being adultery, and sodomy.

GLENN: And sodomy.

STU: Obviously.

GLENN: Why haven't we had her on the every day of the show. Ann thank you very much, and we'll talk to you tomorrow when it's a huge huge disappointment because Romney didn't win by 80 points.

COULTER: That's. Good to talk to you.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.