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

Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson—The Similarities are Getting Eerie

January 15, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

An eerie similarity between Donald Trump and Woodrow Wilson is emerging. You remember Woodrow Wilson, the president Glenn loves so much? Not. America's current problems with an out-of-control, overreaching government can be traced back to Wilson's progressive policies.

If you listen to the language of Trump, it sounds much more like a progressive than a constitutionalist.

"Ronald Reagan said, 'The problem is the government.' Our Founders said, 'The problem is the government.' Donald Trump says it's the people running the government," Glenn said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

From Donald Trump's perspective, the government doesn't need to be reined in, it just needs to be managed better. Now where have we heard that before?

Philip Dru: Administrator, a favorite book of Woodrow Wilson's, was written in 1912 by Edward Mandell House, an American diplomat, politician and presidential foreign policy advisor. Advisor to whom? You guessed it---Woodrow Wilson.

The book's hero leads the democratic western U.S. in a civil war against the plutocratic East, and becomes the dictator of America. Dru as dictator imposes a series of reforms that resemble the Bull Moose platform of 1912---then he vanishes. Considering the author had such a close position to the president, it's no surprise that some of the ideas in the book eventually made their way into public policy.

"Do you realize that if you look at [Donald Trump] as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator," Glenn explained. "The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy."

Still not convinced Donald Trump is a progressive akin to Woodrow Wilson? Just listen to his new campaign song with children---creepily similar to Obama's kiddie propaganda song from 2008. What inspired Trump's anthem? A song from World War I used by none other than Woodrow Wilson.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Donald Trump probably had five boos last night. If you think you're going to unite the party around that guy, it's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. He is a torch and burn everything that doesn't agree with him. He is Barack Obama. He's doing the same thing that Barack Obama -- you disagree with him, it doesn't matter if he liked you in the past. It doesn't matter if he said I had all my attorneys turn this inside and out. He's totally qualified. If it stands in his way, he'll say and do anything. He will destroy you to get his way.

What difference is it?

By the way, I saw something on a Facebook post that said -- because here's what I wrote last night.

While I strongly disagree with Donald Trump's view on Muslims, I believe he will only grow in numbers because Jeb Bush, believe it or not, who I also disagree with, was right. People are afraid because this president has denied the problem, can't name it, and has made us much less safe. That's what Jeb Bush said last night. And that's exactly right. People want security. And they don't believe anyone in Washington, DC, or anyone in the media anymore. They know that they've been lied to by the people that -- the people who trust radical Muslims in Iran more than they trust those who attend church in small towns all across America. They are tired. They know they've worked hard. They're not getting ahead. They don't even know what we're fighting this war for anymore. They're tired of seeing excuses made for criminals, illegals, people who burn down towns like Baltimore or Ferguson. And those who kill in the name of Islam. Always an excuse for those people, but never an exception for Americans. It's bottom up, top down, inside out. Things are so out of control that people rise up and cry out, "Help! Won't somebody do something?" They want somebody just to take care of the problem.

The bottom rises in despair, the top answers their call. Oh, I'll fix that problem. And it finalizes the transformations and turns us inside out. People never make good decisions in times like this. We made shameful mistakes in World War II. A progressive FDR had a problem with immigration, and they called them at that time saboteurs. We would call them terrorists today. German terrorists. We worried about Japanese saboteurs. Before Pearl Harbor happened, FDR had already drawn up his plans for concentration camps. Which, by the way, internment camp is not what FDR called them. FDR always referred to them as concentration camps. The moment he had an excuse of December 7th, he rounded up the Japanese. The guy who ran that program for a very short period of time was Dwight Eisenhower's brother. Dwight Eisenhower's brother resigned and told the new guy, "I hope you can sleep tonight. I can't sleep anymore because this is so terribly wrong."

People were afraid, and so they violated their principles because the government had failed to do their job and screen out the few and tell the truth about the German and Japanese people as it was growing in strength. They allowed FDR to do it because it allowed them to feel safe and it allowed them to not have to do any of it themselves. They didn't even have to think about it.

This was then. Too many Americans now want somebody to think for them. Quite honestly, watching Donald Trump last night, he sounded a lot like my uncle Bob. My uncle Bob, I don't talk about very much because my uncle Bob was not a good man. My uncle Bob, quite honestly, was an alcoholic and an abusive man. And after a few beers in, he would slur some rant and many people would say, "Damn right, pop!" He would never really say anything of substance. He would never suggest any real solutions. My uncle Bob was just mad. He would just say things that other people on barstools had said or would want to hear.

And as the day grew late, in the end, they'd just slap each other on the back and say, "Damn, right, Bob." And they would order another Rainier beer.

Will America think -- will they think, or will they actually go for another man with little or no detail, who just simply calls for hope and change? Or in this case, I'll make America great again.

Here is a response to that on Facebook last night that I read this morning when I got up.

A guy said, "Glenn, you don't understand. It's not that we don't -- we Trump supporters aren't thinking for ourself. We are thinking for ourself. It's not that we think he's going to fix all our problems." Now, listen to this. I want you to listen to this closely. Because if anybody in this audience thinks I've changed. That I'm the one that has changed. Listen carefully to what he said.

We just see Donald Trump as a great manager. Now, can anyone tell me why that might set me off and be proof that I haven't changed, you have?

PAT: Philip Dru: Administrator.

GLENN: Thank you, Pat.

Do you realize that if you look at him as a great manager, you have completed the progressive, fundamental hope number one? You take the president and you make him nothing more than an administrator. The president is a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. You don't need a president. You don't need the Constitution. You don't need the Congress. You need a guy who just manages the bureaucracy. Philip Dru: Administrator. That's exactly what you are seeing in Donald Trump, a progressive that doesn't say the problem is government. He says the problem is the dumb people in government. We've got the wrong people in government. We've got the wrong managers. We have the wrong people negotiating.

Ronald Reagan said, "The problem is the government." Our Founders said, "The problem is the government." Donald Trump says it's the people running the government.

He's not proposing that we shut down whole sections of the government. He's saying, "I'll manage it better."

That's not constitutional. The favorite -- his favorite novel, Woodrow Wilson. Oh, I hate that guy! Woodrow Wilson, his favorite novel was a novel called Philip Dru: Administrator. He read it like three or four times during his administration. It was written by a progressive to put it in novel form of how our government will work when we've completed this task.

It's a horrible book. But it's available for free. I think you can get it on Amazon.com. It's one of those books that is in the public domain so you can download it for free and read it. It's horrible, horrible, horrible, like dime-store novel fiction.

But when you read it, you'll meet Donald Trump. He's a reluctant servant. He just doesn't want to do it. I have a life of my own. I'm not the guy to be your president. I don't need this job. I don't want this job. Okay. Well, I'm the only guy that can do it. I happen to be in the right place at the right time. And damn it, I just care about my country. So I will. And I'll go in there and I'll serve. And I'm going to go in there and I'll fix this because we have all the wrong people running everything. Congress is all screwed up. The administration is all screwed up. I'll just go in. I'm a humble servant. And I'll just go in and I'll manage this right.

Well, about halfway through the book, he has managed things exactly right. In fact, he's managed things so great that he's decided to put a new council together to go state by state and manage the states as well. Because the states don't really work. And the Constitution as it stands doesn't really work. You can't get things done fast enough. And many times the state constitutions argue against things that are now in the US Constitution. So we all have to come together and work together. And I can do that because there's a lot of these politicians that are just standing in the way. But I'm a good manager. And you know me. I just care about the country.

Philip Dru: Administrator. It's happening. No, Glenn, it can't happen. He's a Republican.

The Republicans started the progressive party. It was Theodore Roosevelt.

GLENN: Can we play the audio? Remember the audio of -- of Barack Obama when he had the kids sing and everybody was really creeped out by this audio.

(music)

GLENN: Do you remember how all of us -- all of us said, "That is creepy. That is creepy propaganda that's now being pushed out for the kids?" I'd like to play a new song by a new candidate. Here it is.

(music)

PAT: Yeah! Everybody!

(music)

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: What, you have a problem with this?

PAT: Oh, man.

STU: Yeah.

(music)

PAT: Isn't that great?

GLENN: So president Donald Trump is going to make things great again. A new song for kids which I think is fantastic. And what I really, really like and I think is super is the fact that it's based on a song from World War I used by -- gosh, I can't remember who that guy was. Jeez. I know I hate him.

STU: Isn't his last name I Hate That Guy?

GLENN: I hate that guy. Oh, yeah. Woodrow Wilson. What a surprise.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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.