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 on the influence of libertarians on races across the country

November 06, 2012
Wilson

Writer

This morning on radio, Glenn spoke with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. How does he think libertarians will influence the race? And does he think Republicans are being underestimated in the polls? Check out the full interview from radio in the clip above.

Full transcript of the interview is below:
GLENN: We want to talk to Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. I've heard a lot of people, pollsters, generally say that there are a lot of people that are sitting this one out that are libertarian and they're saying I'm not going to do it because neither of these guys are my guy. I understand that. Neither of these guys were are my guy, either, but I found enough in somebody that I can support because we are at a critical juncture with our country. And you've got to make a choice. You can't just say let it spiral out of control. That's ‑‑ that is the act of a mad man.

We have Senator Rand Paul on to talk a little bit about this and specifically to Missouri because if I understand right, there's a guy running in Missouri who's like been in and out of jail and is running as a libertarian and really not a good choice. Hello, Rand, how are you, sir?

RAND PAUL: The way I look at it is if you want the perfect candidate, the candidate that agrees with you 100% of the time, the only one is if you run yourself. So if you're not actually running, you have to make a little bit of compromise with who you're going to support.

GLENN: I...

RAND PAUL: When I look at, you know, the difference between Romney and Obama, it's a stark difference, and neither one of them are libertarian but I would say on economic freedom and pro business attitude, smaller government, it's night and day that Romney would really support smaller government, particularly in the economic freedoms. So I find it not really that difficult of a choice.

But you're right, and I've had promise Democrats come up to me and say that they guarantee a libertarian runs in every race, every year because they see them as a spoiler. Right now the Democrats have actually plowed $500,000 into a libertarian running for Senate in Montana. It's also happening in Missouri. So the Democrats are actually funding libertarian candidates because they see it as a way to get two or three points in a close election.

GLENN: I will tell you that part of me says good, we're using their money to further libertarian causes, but they would never ‑‑ if there was close ‑‑ if it was close and that libertarian was ever going to have power, they wouldn't like it that much. So they wouldn't fund that one.

RAND PAUL: The problem is we've been ‑‑ for 40 years the libertarians have been trying to form a party and try to get more than 1 or 2% of the vote, but it hasn't happened. Some of it's because there are legal impediments, some of it's because they don't get in the debates. But some of it is that I don't think we'll get a third party unless there were some sort of chaotic situation. You know, we got the Republican Party when slavery was a big issue. We don't have an issue that really rises to that level probably. So ‑‑

GLENN: May I give you the scenario and see what ‑‑ how likely you think this is: I think the one that will create the Libertarian Party or a new party and destroy the Republican Party is if they get control ‑‑ if the Republicans get control of the House and the Senate and the White House and then they, in two years, they don't repeal ObamaCare, they don't roll things back, they aren't serious about cutting. They go into the Karl Rove style Republican, I really, truly believe ‑‑ I know I will never pull the lever of a Republican again if they betray us this time.

RAND PAUL: Well, and I think a lot of people remember the last time we controlled all three branches and they were disappointed by that. And you do lose a certain percentage of people. They either quit voting or they go and vote libertarian just to protest and so you do have to show that we honestly will do the right thing. I also think time is running short that we can't continue to be big government Republicans in adding new programs because really the debt threatens us all.

GLENN: Tell me about the guy who's running in Missouri. Do you know anything about him?

RAND PAUL: I don't know much about him but, you know, I've spent some money trying to get people know that Todd Akin is a small government guy, he's been one of the most conservative, most frugal. And also really to tell you the truth when we have Republicans who lack spine, who are afraid to cut spending, I think if he's elected in the Senate, he will cut spending.

GLENN: That is really good news. How do you feel today going into things?

RAND PAUL: I think the polls still underestimate Republican strength. I think the polls are still taking into account 2008 too much and ignoring 2010. 2010 was an enormous election. The TEA Party movement I think is the biggest movement in the last 40 years in American politics, and I think it's still heading in that direction. I don't think we went to 2010 and now we're headed back to 2008. I just can't believe that ‑‑ I think the polls are going to underestimate. So part of me sees like Dick Morris' predictions or George Will's prediction with Romney getting 300 votes ‑‑ 300 electoral votes or more as being possible. Because I think really the momentum and the enthusiasm is still with us.

GLENN: I ‑‑ you know what? For exactly the same reason I've been saying 321. That Romney's going to walk away with 321. Because I think this is 2010. Aren't you a 2010 baby?

RAND PAUL: Yeah, and I still think so. I still hear the same thing when I talk to people. People are worried. People are concerned that our government's not paying attention to the Constitution. But they're also harkening to the dangers of the debt. And I think people realize it. And everywhere I go, I hear the same sort of rhetoric and concern I heard in 2010.

GLENN: So ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I don't think it's changed.

GLENN: When you were ‑‑

RAND PAUL: I don't think we're going back to 2008.

GLENN: When you were running, wasn't the press saying the same thing about 2010? They were saying ‑‑ they were dismissing it, the TEA Party's extremist, it's not going to play a role, it's really kind of over, yada, yada. They were dismissing all of these things, were they not?

RAND PAUL: It's the same rhetoric. And I would say over and over again what is extreme is a trillion dollar deficit each year. What's extreme is $16 trillion in debt. You know, believing in a balanced budget, for goodness sakes, is not an extreme position.

GLENN: Right. The ‑‑ I'm concerned, let's just project, let's ‑‑ Glenn Beck is declaring now Mitt Romney the winner. So let's project Mitt Romney the winner and let's fast‑forward 24 hours from now. I believe that you will see John Boehner and the Karl Rove crew all kind of getting together and saying the TEA Party is extremist, the social conservatives, are religious conservatives, they had nothing to do with this; this is a Republican thing and if you want to win, you're going to have to reach across the aisle to those reasonable Democrats and you're going to have the John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Boehner kind of takeover. And if we don't stand starting tomorrow and put them on notice, we are not going anywhere. You're going to do these things. They control everybody that we've brought in. Agree or disagree?

RAND PAUL: And letting them know and putting them on notice that if they need one vote to pass the budget, they are going to need to work to get my vote because I'm not voting for a Republican budget that doesn't balance in a reasonable time. To me a reasonable time is five, maybe at the longest eight years. But I'm not voting for any Republican budget that says, oh, in three decades we may value. Because who knows who will even be alive then, who will be elected. We have no control over congresses two decades from now. So unless we have a plan that looks like it would be implemented really within one or two Romney terms, I'm not voting for it. And it's going to have to eliminate some of government. It's not going to just slow the growth of government. So they're going to have to work to get my vote. It's typically been a "let's work to get the liberal Republicans' votes." I'm going to make them work to get the conservative Republican votes.

GLENN: Good.

RAND PAUL: And we're going to get a nucleus of House members and Senate members who say it's going to have to be a budget that balances or we're not voting for it, even if it's a Republican budget.

GLENN: Rand, I have to tell you you'll have the support of this program and our network and also I think majority, vast majority of our listeners because people are sick and tired of hearing something that's going to happen in ten years. It's not going to happen in ten years, and I don't want a five‑year budget where it's all loaded in the fifth year. If you're going to do it, it's balanced in five years, good. We take the pain every single year. Not load it in the fifth year because who those who's going to be in office in the fifth year.

RAND PAUL: And I think it's what people fail to realize about the TEA Party movement. I've been saying over and over again it's equal parts chastisement to both parties. We tend to vote more Republican than the TEA Party does but it's not that they're happy with all Republicans. They want Republicans to balance the budget. They don't want Republicans just because their name is Republican. They want small, limited constitutional government with these budgets. And they will ‑‑ I think they will hold Republicans accountable as well.

GLENN: Oh, I know they will. I know they will. Rand, thank you very much. I appreciate your time and appreciate all the hard work you're doing in Washington. I think assuming Romney wins tomorrow, the hard work has just begun. If you would assume that Obama wins tomorrow, may I recommend moving to Texas.

RAND PAUL: Thanks a lot, Glenn.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye.

RAND PAUL: See ya.

        Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?
    

        Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
    
A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.
Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.
You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.
Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.
I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.
Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.
What Lee actually proposed
Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.
Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.
That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.
It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.
The Biden land-grab
To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.
His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.
In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.
Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?
  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images
As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.
That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.
Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.
Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.
Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?
American families pay the price
The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”
BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.
That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.
I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.
Divide and conquer
This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.
More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

        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.