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

Oh the Irony, California and Oregon Unwittingly Support Constitutional Principles

November 11, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The folks in California and Oregon are fed up. They've had it up to here with the federal government taking their taxes and telling them what to do. Naturally, the next logical step would be secession. Or, hold that thought, perhaps they might consider following the Constitution?

"I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

RELATED: Donald Trump’s Election Spurs Secession Talk in Oregon, California

That's the beauty of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Our brilliant Founders created a system by which states could uniquely follow their own beliefs, without imposing them on other states. But what did they know? The Founders were old, racist men whose ideas have become outdated and irrelevant. At least, that's what progressive liberals would like you to believe.

"If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be. Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

The Founders recognized that diversity would strengthen the United States of America, not diminish it. They built our system of government accordingly, making provisions for the states to be different and unique.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these relevant questions:

• If California jumped off a bridge should we all do it?

• Why is the Tenth Amendment the perfect tool for diversity?

• Why does each state have its own flag and motto?

• What does E pluribus unum mean, and why do progressives believe the opposite?

• Did Barack Obama help or hurt Democrats?

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

GLENN: Let's talk a little about secession. California and Oregon are talking now about seceding. And I find that amazing because, A, that was so un-American to talk about when Barack Obama was president. But now it's very, very popular. And I would just like to speak to California for a second. One of their big issues is they're tired of their tax dollars going to the federal government. They want control of their tax dollars and have their tax dollars stay at home for California.

JEFFY: Huh.

GLENN: And they want to make their decisions, not be dictated to by the federal government.

PAT: Huh. What a concept.

GLENN: We would just like to say, we want that too.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You may be surprised that you're not a progressive if you believe in that. You're a constitutionalist. Because that's what the Constitution guarantees that we have now just dismissed.

So if you believe those things, then you're actually a constitutionalist, and you don't need to secede. You need to join us. You need to join us. And come with us on the Constitution. Because once we restore that, those feelings go away.

PAT: If that's their issue, Hillary wasn't the right candidate. You voted for the wrong person.

GLENN: I don't think these are Hillary people. These are Bernie Sanders people.

PAT: Well, that's even worse.

GLENN: At best. At best.

PAT: Bernie Sanders would have been even worse for that.

GLENN: No.

PAT: A socialist?

GLENN: No, no. No. Because here's what people -- here's the problem: People are playing politics, and they're not playing principles. So they're perfectly fine being California as part of the United States, as long as the rest of the United States does it the way Californians want.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so that's called authoritarianism. They're not really for freedom. They are for their rule of law. And if the rest of the country won't go that way, well then, they don't want to be a part of the country.

PAT: Yeah, but Bernie Sanders is a strong central government guy.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: The strongest central government --

GLENN: Again, they would have --

PAT: -- we know of in public office.

GLENN: Right. Because they only care about what they want. They believe they're right and everyone else is wrong. And so, as long as we have a strong central figure in Washington that is forcing everyone else to live the way we want to live, well, then, that's great. Then we'll make everybody's life happy because we're going to teach those people in Texas just how happy they're going to be. Right?

JEFFY: It will be fascinating to see how much --

GLENN: You know what it is -- hang on just a second. It is exactly the argument that Jefferson Davis made. He said states' rights.

Well, no, he didn't really mean states' rights. Because if you joined in the rebellion, you had to be a slave-owning state. You had to be for the furtherance of slavery. So they -- they weren't talked about states' rights. They were fighting for their system of government.

That's the same thing with California. They're not talking about, "Hey, we want to be free in California." They're saying, "No, we want everybody to live this way. If you choose to, we're taking our marbles and going home."

Oregon is also going for this. And there's no sense of irony from the press. There's no sense of, "Hang on just a second, how did we treat Texans when they said this?"

And you have to understand, Texas has been saying this -- Pat's right -- since 1837. Texans have been saying this from the very beginning. I don't know how Texas ever became a state.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Because this is the way Texas has been from the beginning: secede. But California says, "Hey, we're the -- what is it? The sixth largest economy in the world. We'll take this economy."

Okay. I really don't -- I mean, I know this is very unpopular to say, "But I'm really okay with that." I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California.

STU: That's kind of what federalism is, in a way. It's a way of 50 countries under a very generalized group of rules, but they can do whatever they want inside those rules. I mean, in a way, it is 50 different countries inside a country.

GLENN: That's the way it used to be.

STU: That's the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be.

Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years.

GLENN: Otherwise, why do we have state flags? Why do we have state flags? Why don't we all just have one star that says, California, Texas? You know, just a flag more like Texas that is red, white, and blue, has the strips, but just one star. We're one of 50.

Because we're all unique. We all have different mottos. We all have different things we focus on. We all have different strengths. We all have different weaknesses. E pluribus unum. From many, one. But we're not -- the progressive idea is to not have many.

It's to have just one. I'll tell you, the Democrats are going to -- the Democrats have a hard, hard road. They thought that Barack Obama was going to help them. I don't think so.

Now, I do believe he's helped the Marxists. He's helped the socialist. He's helped the radicals of the party. But who are you going to elect four years down the road? It will be somebody like Bernie Sanders. It's got to be somebody like Elizabeth Warren. It's got to be somebody who is --

PAT: Radical.

GLENN: Radical.

STU: And this is the same thing -- think about -- go back in election history. John McCain runs and loses. Mitt Romney runs and loses. What is the reaction of the right?

It's to say, "Well, you didn't get anybody. You did this progressive-lite thing." You did this thing where you're basically running a middle-of-the-road guy that wasn't -- didn't have conservative principles. And that's why you failed.

Same thing is going to happen in the Democrat Party now. They're going to say, "Wait a minute. We have Bernie Sanders. He ignited the youth. Everyone was excited about him." His polling, by the way, if you go back and look at it -- and I think there's flaws with these comparisons. But his polling was great in a general. I mean, he beat everybody in a general, Sanders.

PAT: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think.

STU: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think if it was real life, but God only knows at this point.

PAT: I don't think -- yeah.

GLENN: I think it would have been close -- I said from the beginning, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, give a real choice. Because I think Bernie Sanders would speak to the next generation. He could be America 3.0.

Featured Image: Based on flag flown during the Bear Flag Revolt. Contains a single red star, a red stripe along the bottom, and a grizzly bear. The Bear Flag is the official flag of the state of California. The precursor of the flag was first flown during the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt and was also known as the Bear Flag. (Wiki Commons)

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.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

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.