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

Rand Paul responds to angry Paul supporters

June 14, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Earlier this week, Glenn reported that Senator Rand Paul has been taking some serious heat from his father’s supporters over his endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Glenn interviewed Rand on radio this morning to get his thoughts on the current backlash, the state of libertarianism, and what is going on in Congress. Read the full transcript below.

GLENN: Rand Paul is a guy who lives the principles and is getting an awful lot of heat, at least this week you were getting heat earlier because of some of the supports of your father, you came out and you supported Mitt Romney and now you're getting heat from those guys. How is your dad even dealing with this, Rand?

PAUL: Well, you know, the thing about the Internet is the people who are the most unhappy are often the really smallest amount of your supporters. When we look at our supporters overall, my supporters, my dad's supporters, you know, libertarian conservatives, in general, the vast majority are not, you know, these angry folks, you know, preaching, you know, violence to me and my family because we've endorsed Governor Romney. So, I think really sometimes the extremists on the Internet get more credit than really the entire movement and they shouldn't represent the entire movement.

You know, I try to look for commonalities, areas where we agree and, you know, Governor Romney, I've had a meeting with him. We've talked extensively about audit the Fed, which is very important not only to me but my father and to his supporters and I think there's a very good chance we get it in the platform. There has been an announcement in the House that we're going to get a vote in the House and I'm working with both Republican and Democrat leadership to try to get a vote here, but some of my dad's supporters don't realize that if you call people names and call them evil, they're less likely to allow you to have a vote on something you really want to pass.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You're saying that Romney may put audit the Fed into the platform?

PAUL: Well, the Ron Paul supporters are going to be -- about 2 or 300 delegates there are going to help him to do that, but he has already said publicly that he's for audit the Fed. That he has said many times. As far as the specific bill --

GLENN: That's fantastic.

PAUL: -- I would like him to endorse the specific bill but -- that my father has introduced that will be voted on, but publicly he's already stated that he is in support of auditing the Fed.

GLENN: You know, Rand -- and I want to talk to you a little bit about drones here in a second, but I know you were a big fan of Broke. I have to send you a new copy of Cowards because there's a chapter specifically that I would like you to read about libertarian -- libertarianism and I would like to have you on just to talk about it and see where you think I might be wrong or might be missing the boat. The chapter is all about that libertarianism, the chair was taken away from the table by the big government progressives in the Republicans and the Democratic party and they are many of the people that are defining what a libertarian is, that you have to be this crazy, you know,　We never went to the moon and we should never have a government dollar for absolutely anything kind of people and that's not　-- that's not what libertarianism is.

PAUL: Well, you know, even Ronald Reagan said the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism and many of the people who were in the founding movement in this last century of the conservative limited government movement also embrace the term libertarian. So, libertarian just means believing in limited Constitutional government. There are a lot of people who are libertarians.

GLENN: All right. Let me talk to you about drones because I find this -- I find this frightening, not only that the government is doing it but that the American people don't seem to care.

PAUL: Well, I think it's incredibly important that we restate what was in, you know, our founding fathers were very concerned about the idea of general warrants, basically that the government could just say they could search anywhere any time without having probable cause or naming who they were going to search. That sort of, if anything, could possibly be general surveillance or general, you know, searching of your privacy would be a drone, because the ability to get information and to do it anywhere, any time is just amazing and it could be used for good but it also can be used for harm and so we need to make sure we have, you know, the Constitutional protections in place and some have said, Well, your bill just restates the Constitution, (inaudible) the Fourth Amendment. Well, I think it needs to be restated because I'm afraid people -- you know, I'm afraid Mayor Bloomberg is going to be going over my backyard barbecue, seeing if anybody's got a Big Gulp or whether or not I'm separating my recyclables correctly. So, we already have a lot of nanny state and all they need is the perfect surveillance equipment to really make it a bad situation.

GLENN: I mean, Rand, there's a quote from Bloomberg, I have to send this to you. It's amazing. He was talking about surveillance on New York City and he said -- and I -- correct me if I'm wrong, Pat, but I think this is almost a direct quote, we can't have people thinking that they can just go anywhere they want.

PAUL: Well --

GLENN: Really?

PAUL: When you were talking about lemonade stands, I was thinking of Thorough's essay on civil disobedience and I was thinking, ‘Do you know what? Do you think he could ever contemplate in his lifetime that civil disobedience would someday be putting up illegal lemonade stands by school kids?’

GLENN: I mean, you know what happened yesterday? We had about a thousand people here in Texas at this lemonade stand. We had about 400 of them all around the country and here in Texas, in Texas, we had about 20 Occupy Wall Street people protesting children having a lemonade stand to benefit the homeless. (Laughter.) I mean --

PAUL: Did you -- have you heard about the Dollarhite family? They're from Missouri and the Department of Agriculture fined them $90,000 for selling bunnies with the wrong license. They actually had a license for selling bunnies, but they had the wrong listens. They fined them $90,000 because they fined them for every bunny they had sold and apparently bunnies, you know, reproduce like rabbits and they told them, though, if they didn't pay on time, it would be $3.1 million if they didn't pay within 30 days.

GLENN: Did they pay it?

PAUL: They fought it and interestingly, after about a year -- and the Department of Agriculture got somewhat embarrassed by this thing, they came back to them and they wanted a consent agreement but do you know what they wanted them to sign after they finally were red in the face and they had discovered that they were embarrassed by this? They wanted them to sign and say they would never be involved with mating and reproducing animals again. These people live on a home in rural Missouri and they want to tell them they can't reproduce their livestock. And so they wouldn't sign and this went on and on. I'm sure exactly where it is now. It's John and Judy Dollarhite from Missouri.

GLENN: Gosh.

PAUL: And it's just another example of an out of control government.

GLENN: Why do you think this stuff is happening? Do you know -- you know, I was thinking about all this regulation and I thought, Okay, in many places now they are -- and this is amaze to go me -- they are now saying in Philadelphia that you cannot feed the homeless in places where people have done it　-- charities and ministries have fed people in the open air for decades if not two centuries in Philadelphia. They're now saying they have to be in certain places and in -- I think it's in Philadelphia, but also, I believe, in California, they're reclassifying soup kitchens as restaurants and I wonder, you know, A, are they trying to close our heart? Are they trying to get more power and make people dependent on this or is this just a city, state, or Federal Government that needs those tax dollars, needs all that regulation to be able to generate money for the cities? Which is it or is it both?

PAUL: Well, I think what you said earlier kind of hits the nail on the head. We've been asleep at the switch. We haven't seemed to have cared enough. Particularly the people we've elected, the people in Washington don't care about your privacy, your State rights or individual rights. The difference between the Federal Government and the state government, it's lost on those people. They care about what a majority can pass and if a major can pass something and they want to appear to do good, they don't care about the nuance of the Constitution or the nuance of State versus Federal rights. So, they pass these things.

You know, George Will has said it many times, we have abdicated, Congress has abdicated our power to these regulatory agencies and literally the position of a U.S. senator or a U.S. Congressman is diminished such that your average ordinary bureaucrat over in the EPA has more power than I do.

GLENN: Well, how do we get rid of the drones?

PAUL: Well, I think what we've done with the drones is we have said you have to have a warrant to use them. Now, I'm not against using them for national defense or for border security or for various other reasons. If you've got someone who robbed a liquor store, sending down the street a helicopter, a plane, or a police car is fine with me; but I don't want them crisscrossing neighborhoods and mapping out our every movement if there's no probable cause that we've committed a crime.

GLENN: Rand, I am glad to have you in the Senate. I am so glad that you are there. I think you're one of the strong voices. You know, you and Mike Lee and people like that, Jim DeMint are standing and I believe you actually have a spine and one of the good guys who just will keep taking the hammering no matter what and hammer back.

PAUL: I might be seeing you. I think you've been invited to a Freedom Fest down in July in Texas and I think they said you're speaking down there and I think Ted Cruz who's a friend of mine running for the Senate down there is going to be at that event, also

GLENN: Oh. I didn't know you were coming. That's by Freedom Works

PAUL: Yeah, Freedom Works and I think it's in July sometime.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. July 26th. Yeah.

PAUL: Yeah. And I'm going to try to help my friend Ted Cruz get elected to the Senate down there, too.

GLENN: Oh. I don't think we've ever met, have we?

PAUL: Yeah. Maybe in the television studio one time, but I think I've never interviewed in person with you. It's always been on the phone. My staff has told me to keep my distance.

(Laughter.)

GLENN: I believe that to be true and they're very wise. Rand, thank you very much and I appreciate it. God bless.

PAUL: All right. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Bye-bye.

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.