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

The story behind Obama’s doc “The Road We’ve Traveled”

March 16, 2012
Wilson

Writer

The Obama campaign has enlisted the help of Hollywood to make a mini-documentary on how awesome Barack Obama’s Presidency has been. Of course, he’s been so horrific a president it makes sense he’d need to recruit people who make stuff up for a living to promote himself. Why’d they select that name? Glenn covered the story on radio this morning!

Read the transcript of the discussion below:

GLENN: Well, hello, America. Welcome to the program. There is a lot to discuss. There is some amazing, some amazing things that nobody could find, you know, that was a problem for the president in the new Tom Hanks documentary which I think is ‑‑ Tom, you must be so proud. You must be so proud. You're so neutral in this, you're making a campaign film, it really is a propaganda film for Barack Obama. The problem with it is the filmmaker said, you know, the only thing that we could really find bad about Barack Obama is that it was just so good. I've never ‑‑ huh.

PAT: Yeah, here's what he said with Piers Morgan the other night.

MORGAN: These documentary makers, you know, balance these movies with the negative as well as the positive. What are the negatives in your movie about Barack Obama?

VOICE: Well, I mean, the negative for me was there were too many accomplishments. I had, you know, 17 minutes to put them all in there but I think ‑‑

MORGAN: Oh, come off it. Come ‑‑ you can't say that with a straight face. Come on.

VOICE: I'm looking at you right now with a straight face. I mean, look, I mean ‑‑

MORGAN: The only negative about Barack Obama is there are too many positives is this

VOICE: That was a negative ‑‑ excuse me, a negative for me.

MORGAN: Oh.

VOICE: Which is, you know, I ‑‑ the challenge for me was I wanted to put more in there, I really did.

MORGAN: Are there any negatives in there?

VOICE: I think they're negatives in the sense that the challenges when you're trying to pass healthcare in a really toxic environment, they're negatives in terms of the opposition he's had.

PAT: That is Debbie Wasserman Schultz‑worthy right there.

STU: It is, that's almost Debbie Wasserman Schultz syndrome right there.

GLENN: After four years the only bad thing they found about their time in office was... it was just too good.

STU: I'm glad, too, they got the guy, Tom Hanks, who also brought us the documentary about how we were all just racists in World War II 6789 wasn't that the same?

GLENN: Yeah, it is.

STU: That's right.

GLENN: It is.

STU: All it was was about our Japanese racism.

GLENN: Yeah, mmm‑hmmm.

STU: Certainly nothing to do with, I don't know, Nazis and stuff.

PAT: And being attacked.

GLENN: Or being attacked.

STU: And being attacked.

GLENN: By the empire of Japan.

STU: It certainly had nothing to do with that.

GLENN: It had nothing to do with that.

STU: It was our racism.

GLENN: It was our racism.

STU: Uh‑huh.

GLENN: You know what? Tom Hanks, how do these guys dupe us? And, you know, I apologize to the family members, unless they're all communists, too, of Jimmy, Jimmy Stewart. Because I've always thought that Tom Hanks was our Jimmy Stewart. He couldn't be further from Jimmy Stewart. Jimmy Stewart and Hank Fonda, they were all decent Americans. They loved the country. They were decent, good Americans.

STU: I don't know that ‑‑ yeah, I mean, that last ‑‑ this thing, I mean, he's just a crazy Hollywood liberal which you'd sort of expect, though I feel like for a long time he wasn't out there making a big deal out of that.

GLENN: Oh, no. I mean, of course no.

STU: I don't know why it's changed.

GLENN: They all hide. I mean, look at Barack Obama. By the way, the name of this, the name of this documentary is The Road We've Traveled, right?

STU: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: Could you do me a favor? Could you look up Stuart Chase? I believe Stuart Chase is the guy who coined the term The New Deal. I'm pretty sure. There's this book from the 1930s that was written by Stuart Chase and I thought of it this morning as we were thinking about the movie The Road We've Traveled, Stuart Chase, have you seen?

STU: It has been suggested he was the originator of the expression A New Deal.

GLENN: Okay. Progressive?

STU: I mean, I'm just reading a sentence here.

GLENN: I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure. I think this guy was a big FDR guy. And he wrote this book called The Road We are Traveling and it was written in 1942 and he said we're on this road and after the war is finished ‑‑ he wrote this book in 1942. After the war is finished, we're going to have to clear up this mystery. But what we are now is no longer, it's not socialism, it's not capitalism. He just called it in his book X. And he said, we'll have to define it later, but it's X. We don't know what to call it yet.

But there's some major characteristics, and it's replaced our system of free enterprise and it will all over the world. He said we could call it communism, we could call it fascism, we could call it state capitalism. We just don't know what it is.

Now, he said ‑‑ try this on for size. This is what it is. This is how you would describe it: A strong centralized government.

Would you say we have that?

STU: Check.

GLENN: An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arms.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Got that? The control of banking, credit, and security exchanges by the government.

STU: Yeah. Jeez.

GLENN: The underwriting of employment through armaments or public works.

STU: Yeah, absolutely. Stimulus package and so much more.

GLENN: The underwriting of Social Security by the government.

STU: Mmm‑hmmm.

GLENN: The underwriting of food, housing, and medical care by the government. The use of deficit spending to than the these underwritings.

STU: We're 100% so far.

GLENN: The abandonment of gold in favor of managed currencies.

STU: Obviously.

PAT: Been there.

GLENN: The control of foreign trade by the government. The control of natural resources. The control of energy sources.

STU: Yep.

GLENN: The control of transportation. The control of agricultural production. The control of organized labor unions. The enlistment of young men and young women in youth corps devoted to health, discipline, community service, and ideologies consistent with those of the government authorities.

PAT: They're kind of working on that right now.

GLENN: Heavy taxation with special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich.

STU: (Laughing.) Is this ‑‑

GLENN: State control of communications and propaganda.

STU: This is like a mission statement for the Obama administration.

GLENN: May I? This book was not an indictment of it.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: It was saying "This is great." Remember this is the guy who coined the term The New Deal. This is the road we're traveling. Now, is it a coincidence? I'm sure it is. Is it a coincidence that anybody who has studied progressivism ‑‑ I mean, when I heard the name of this, this documentary, I mean, you were with me, Pat.

PAT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: Immediately.

STU: Perked up right away.

GLENN: Wait a minute. I have that book. I had it wrong. I thought it was the Road We Traveled. The name of the book is The Road We're Traveling.

PAT: That makes so much sense because we were traveling that road then. Now we've traveled it.

GLENN: We've traveled it.

PAT: And now it's past tense. We're there. It's great.

GLENN: This is yet another ‑‑

PAT: It's amazing.

GLENN: Another knife in the back to anybody who doesn't know and a wink to anybody who does know the history. Everybody who ‑‑ anybody who is a Cass Sunstein, I mean, Cass Sunstein wanted this job because he's a fan of Edward Bernays. He knows. He salivated over this job. He couldn't wait. Those guys would absolutely know. I mean, remember when they were talking to us about Father Coughlin and they're calling me Father Coughlin and we're like, who the hell is Father Coughlin? They knew. They know these players. They know who Stuart Chase is. I really believe that whoever did this, they know exactly what they've done. They've said, "Yeah, yeah, it was X." They couldn't identify what it was. It's state capitalism.

See, we were trying to do all these things in 1942 and Stuart Chase says, "If we do it right... this is 1942: "If we do it right, if you get it right, you will not be able to turn this ship off of that course." Now the name of this movie is The Road We Traveled?

STU: Well, certainly by the standard they set up, they're definitely guilty. If you remember back in 2010, we did that rally, you know, Restoring Honor in Washington and they immediately accused us of stealing the speech date of Martin Luther King as if we had any idea.

GLENN: Exactly right.

STU: They immediately accused us of that. So by their standard clearly this has to be intentional.

GLENN: So who is Stuart Chase? Who's the guy who said he was going to change the free market enterprise, that this is state capitalism? Who was he? He was a Fabian Socialist, a member of the Fabian Society at Harvard, a friend of Walter Lippmann. Water Lippmann is the guy who every journalist in America has studied and hails as a hero. He was a eugenicist, a eugenics guy, he was a progressive, he was a member of the Woodrow Wilson administration.

STU: (Laughing.) Sometimes I feel like they do this stuff just to give you monologues.

GLENN: I mean, I ‑‑ I can't believe it.

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: That's amazing.

PAT: That's amazing. I mean, but that's what they do.

STU: So they were traveling it in 1942, this road, and now ‑‑

PAT: We've traveled it.

STU: ‑‑ we've finally traveled it.

PAT: Yeah, we've arrived.

GLENN: And he said the war is going to give us a chance to actually finish this and you won't be able to turn it off the course, you won't be able to turn it around. They did turn it around some ‑‑ somewhat. But now the question is can we turn it around now. The Road We've Traveled. The name of the book from 1942 is The Road We're Traveling. You decide. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, I'm sure it is.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

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.