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

Glenn: Prepare for war unlike any we have seen in our lifetime

May 18, 2015
Staff

WRITER

While discussing the GOP field on radio Monday, Glenn realized he needs to get the candidates to discuss their war strategy as there may be conflict coming unlike anything people have ever seen. Why?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment

GLENN: Now let's go to the audio -- do you have Rand Paul or -- here's Rand Paul being asked about ISIS and Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

VOICE: You're sort of implying you disagree with that. Do you believe the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein were still the strong man in Iraq?

RAND PAUL: I don't think that's exactly how I would put it, but I would say I think we are more at risk for attack from people who are training, organizing and fighting in Iraq than we were before, so for example, ISIS is a more of an aberration than even Hussein was, so you have this radical brand of jihad, radical brand of Islam that is now strong and growing stronger because of the failed state that Iraq is. You have the same thing going on in Libya. So this is a valid debate. We'll have to have this debate, not only in the Republican primary, but in the general, as to whether or not it's a good idea. Is intervention always a good idea or sometimes does it lead to unintended consequences?

GLENN: Usually. Usually it leads to unintended consequences.

PAT: Where would you be on that? How would you answer that we? It's difficult.

GLENN: Give me the question.

PAT: Is Iraq better or worse off without Saddam Hussein? I mean, it's worse now, I think, than it was under Saddam Hussein when he was alive, but would it even be worse, if he were still alive? I don't know.

GLENN: There's no way to answer that, but if I had to go back with everything that we know now --

PAT: Would you go in now?

GLENN: No. I would not.

STU: This is the great point of libertarianism and we should consider it more as conservatives and --

GLENN: Are you becoming a conservetarian?

STU: I have read The Conservetarian Manifesto. It's a great book and it goes over those particular arguments well. But as far as this war goes, it is not -- say you believe George Bush was great and you think he did a great job prosecuting the war. When you start these giant government efforts, you can't eliminate the idea that somebody else, like Barak Obama, comes in to screw it up. Let's -- even if you believe, if you are a piper partisan and believe Bush was great, when you start these things, you still have to allow for that, the same way that dumb Progressives say, well, we should just let the president do whatever he wants. Immigration, just let him do it. We say wait until the next guy gets in. You aren't going to like that opinion anymore. Same with war. If you had the perfect guy prosecuting this war, whoever you think that person is, maybe it would have turned out better, but it seems like something always changes that you don't know is coming, then it winds up being worse every time. It is a tough thing to predict. And at the moment -- with the information we had at the time with Iraq, it felt like the right decision. But more and more, as I am growing, as someone who thinks about the world -- I think I am growing, as I grow, you start to consider these things, there's a lot of stuff you don't know.

GLENN: You're becoming Donald Rumsfeld.

STU: There's no knowns and no unknowns. And unknown knowns and unknown unknowns. It is a lot of times this is what happens. Even with the right information, would this be better; we don't know. It is so impossible, because you may have someone else that comes in, a different general, a different piece of information slides in. At the end, you wind up with this, where we kind of, as conservatives agreed it was a good case to go in. And Saddam was dangerous and we don't know. It is possible that Saddam may have done something even worse than what ISIS is doing. We don't know, but it is so impossible to manage, you wonder in the best course of action isn't to just lay back a little bit.

PAT: No. I know that's a bet I have coarse of action.

GLENN: So now tell me what you do with ISIS. Do you lay back a bit?

PAT: No. Well, yeah, because I don't have any confidence in this administration to do it right. George Bush didn't do it right, these guys certainly aren't going to.

STU: Absent of Ted Cruz, and everybody Ted Cruz --

GLENN: I haven't talked to Ted in depth, on what would you war strategy be?

STU: We should do that next time.

GLENN: I don't know where he stands on that.

STU: Even if you think he's the perfect guy, we think he will do it right. Four years later he might not have the job. It is still going on, everybody if you pull all the troops -- there's always going something going on.

PAT: Bush could have taken care of -- come on. In four years, certainly. Eight years, he could have taken care of Iraq, to the point where it was subdued. I mean --

STU: He kind -- he did, kind of. All right sort of didn't. A lot of messing around.

GLENN: The middle part, before the surge, there was a screwup. Then he started the surge, and it got good. I mean -- walked with actual shock and awe, it would have been better.

PAT: Put the hammer down and get out.

STU: Isn't this the communist argument all the time? If Stalin would have just done this. They never do this. The right thing never occurs.

GLENN: I'm kind of with --

PAT: We used to. It's been a long time.

GLENN: Up until Tragedy and Hope.

STU: A lot of that happened before there were these sort of restrictions. Again, we can say we want them to go in and act like World War II, but the -- we have one bomb that flies offer target by six inches and it's like the biggest story in the world forever. People who were naked in a prison was the dominated the news for six months. I mean, how do you --

PAT: But they were in a pyramid.

STU: And a dog was barking nearby. How can you prosecute a war in the a way we'd say would be a winnable way. And when you can't do it that way --

GLENN: I don't think naked pyramids are winning a war.

PAT: No.

STU: I'm not -- when you have a thing --

PAT: Goes nuts, just because you saw men in a naked pyramid and a dog barked near them, you can't prosecute a war like that.

STU: We talk about World War II, where they did shock and awe certainly in World War II. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians died. It was not at pretty picture. And obviously, war is hell, but is there any way that America, with the backbone they ever today, with the 99 percenters with Occupy Wall Street as part of this country, with all that, they are going to accept a war effort like that? And you'd better freaking be right on that one.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You are saying if everything changes. Maybe that's true.

GLENN: Except a couple of variable changes. Economic collapse and terrorist attacks here on our own soil, where they go into a school and just kill a bunch of our children, yeah. We'll bomb the snot out of them. We'll bomb the snot out of them, if you had a Republican. If we had President Obama, I think we'd just go on some apology tour, but if we had an economic collapse, where people were frightened, really, truly frightened, and then on top of it, you had a really bad terrorist attack, I think we would.

STU: We had a really bad terrorist attack. 3,000 people died to start this. In Afghanistan, there was still some of that. It wasn't as --

GLENN: You didn't have it -- remember, we were still in good times. We still were -- we are not in fear of losing our country yet. Once you -- most people are not. Most people are not. When you have a real, true fear of losing everything, losing your homeland, and that happens when people are invading -- it is going to be different this next time. It's not going to be 19 guys who got onto a passport and just came over here. Now it will be home-grown. They will be in multiple cities, so you won't know. Did you see what ISIS came out and said? That ISIS, their number one goal now is to hit America and kill the president.

I cannot imagine --

STU: Yeah, that would change perspective.

GLENN: That would change perspectives entirely. Unfortunately, it would change perspectives here in the United States. We got the Patriot Act the last time. Can you even imagine what the Department of Homeland Security would be if they, God forbid, hurt the president?

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: And 90% of the population --

GLENN: Everybody would be screening for it.

STU: Yeah. To go back to what you talked about a mill times, this is why you have to have your principles and know what they are, before that tough moment goes into effect, because you need to be able to rely on them and not make decisions based on emotion.

GLENN: Not enough of us knew the constitution, and we were -- we believed that we would never lose our security. We believed we would never lose our privacy, we would never lose our country. So we were like okay, well, I'm going to trade some of my freedoms, because they're going to give it back. They won't take this. They won't do that. We know now, at least a portion of us, unfortunately, the vast majority still doesn't get it.

I don't know what it's going to take, but you change a few variables and we will -- and I would suggest that you prepare for all-out war, war unlike we have ever seen in our lifetime, because that's what I believe is coming, unfortunately. I'm hoping that there's a way to put this genie back in the bottle, but I don't see it.

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.