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

Is the Alledged Russian Intel on Trump Factual?

January 11, 2017
Staff

WRITER

BuzzFeed on Tuesday published a report that has circulated around the media since August. No other media outlet would publish the unsubstantiated information, which hurls salacious allegations against President-elect Donald Trump and ties him to Russia. However, abandoning all journalistic integrity, BuzzFeed published the report, forcing other news outlets to address the allegations and President-elect Trump to hold a press conference.

The BuzzFeed article states:

A dossier, compiled by a person who has claimed to be a former British intelligence official, alleges Russia has compromising information on Trump. The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.

"Anyone who would come into my office [with this], I would say, Get the hell out of my office.

So what's truth and what's not? Is there any factual information --- and does it matter?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Can we start here? Can we start here?

Let's agree on the premise first. Okay? On the premise of what we're doing.

We have to, as citizens, now figure out whether or not we should look at this and discuss this or not.

And here are the two sides: One side will say -- and break it down in classic logic.

The president gets the best intelligence. Right?

PAT: Yes. Although, it's not always accurate.

GLENN: Right. Hang on just a second. The first premise is the president gets the best intelligence. This was given to the president. Therefore, this is the best information. Now, there have been people who are making that -- look, they didn't make this up. This was given to the president. You don't believe the president's briefings? That's the first side. They'll immediately accept it because, this is credible information. It's coming from those four guys.

But that's false. Because of what Pat said. The middle sentence is incorrect or incomplete. "This was given to the president."

The middle sentence should be, "This was given to the president, but a lot of the stuff he's getting lately has been politicized, and sometimes it's incorrect."

PAT: Just ask him about weapons of mass destruction.

GLENN: Exactly right. Okay?

So the other side will tell you, the president gets the best intelligence. Yeah, but it's all politicized now. Therefore, we have to dismiss it.

No. No. Both of those are wrong. Logic will tell us, the president most times, or the president gets the best intelligence available to him. What is given to the president is sometimes wrong. Therefore, we must not dismiss or accept, but instead, investigate.

So this is up to us now. Because it's been dropped into the laps of the American people.

So let's logically, dispassionately look at what we have, and not accept or dismiss anything. Anybody who says, "I'm not listening," you're a fool. Anybody who says, "I'm not listening to you trying to excuse it all," you're a fool. "I'm not listening to you because you're talking about Donald Trump," you're a fool.

Because let's take it from the Trump side: This is Donald Trump's birther problem now. This will forever be the -- the birth certificate of Barack Obama. From here on out, the left will use this information to try to discredit. And they will say in -- in all kinds of fake news, "Well, yes, he's -- he's proved that's wrong. But I've got better sources. And let me show you. I'm going to be making a statement about some better sources that will show you he's lying."

And it will be used against Donald Trump from here on out. So you better build a strong case, based on logic, not on fear, not on anger, not on blind loyalty. Because they -- the other side will build it that way.

PAT: And we're talking about the president of the United States. Both sides, always, to themselves and to the country -- to dig into this and to investigate.

GLENN: We were never birthers. But I will tell you that there were many people around us that were passionate about Barack Obama's birth certificate at the very beginning. Passionate.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And we dispassionately investigated. We did our own homework. We were never birthers. We dismissed it. I'm sorry. At first, we took this approach. Not on the air. But internally, we took this approach: Neither dismiss it, nor accept it. It's out there. Let's do our homework and find out whether or not it's credible or not. We found it to be completely uncredible. So we dismissed it.

Let's do the same thing here because I guarantee you, this is going to be his birth certificate problem.

STU: Yeah, or at least part one of it. Who knows how many things are going to come out like this.

JEFFY: No kidding.

GLENN: There's two things he has going against him: How do you cry foul that you can't believe a source, when you were the one accepting the National Enquirer? When you were the one who said, "I have additional information on his birth certificate," and he never produced it?

STU: Right. I mean, this is --

GLENN: You're not going to gather a lot of sympathy from the people who don't like you.

STU: Right.

GLENN: There's no fairness points coming your way, unless they really are trying to be better people.

STU: And, look, we look at this, and we try to look at it, as you point out, soberly, dispassionately, and look at the information.

GLENN: Fairly.

STU: Right now, what we know, as far as these reports go -- and we haven't really talked about what's in the report.

GLENN: Yes. We'll do that next.

STU: It's almost important to look at it the way it's presented, which is I think fair -- the journalistically correct way is the way that Tapper's team did it.

GLENN: And, by the way, what we clipped from that was, who was on Tapper's team?

STU: Carl Bernstein.

GLENN: It was the cream of the crop of journalists. That doesn't mean anything to a lot of people, but it is the best we have.

STU: Right. But, I mean, if you want to find out how to report a story, a good place to start is to see how Jake Tapper reported it. You're going to be on the right side of that about 99 percent of the time.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. I agree.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And so -- you see there -- I think what happened with the Buzzfeed part of this is they all -- all these media organizations have had this information since what -- they believe, since August.

And my initial inclination on the story like this is they would never do -- look at this, they're just trying to take down a Republican president. They would never do this to the other side. They could have released this information before the election. They had it.

GLENN: In fact, Harry Reid was demanding it.

STU: Yes. So they could have done this before the election. The CNN report, I think, breaks every -- but they're not the only people with this information. CNN reports it, and then Buzzfeed says, "Well, we have this. Let's get our piece of this story out there and try to claim as much as the reporting as we can."

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Did they step over the line? Probably. But I understand their motivation there. I understand --

GLENN: I actually -- the Buzzfeed story -- I hate to give this the -- because I didn't know CNN broke this. I thought CNN -- I thought the events were reversed.

PAT: Were reversed.

STU: Right.

GLENN: I thought CNN came out and did that. And I was like, "Okay. Well, that's the credible way of presenting."

STU: Right.

PAT: Is Buzzfeed the only one reporting the most salacious stuff?

STU: They release the actual documents. Inside the documents, it says things about prostitutes. We can get into in a little bit. And also financial connections.

PAT: But CNN didn't even go into that.

STU: They didn't even mention it. And so that --

GLENN: Well, they did say "the most salacious personal parts." They're not even talking about that.

STU: No.

GLENN: I mean, it is the other parts of this that are equally disturbing. I will tell you, that the personal parts are almost irrelevant to me. You know, because you've either made up your mind about who Donald Trump is as a man one way or another.

STU: Right. But this is about whether he's compromised as a president.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. So the sex -- this part of it doesn't matter, except, is he compromised as a president?

But the first part of it is bad enough to be compromised as a president.

STU: And a lot of the debate today is about, oh -- people are saying, "He didn't do that. He's innocent. He didn't have all these prostitutes in Moscow." We'll get into the details into why that's not important. It's not important. I will also say, I don't think there's any reason to even entertain the idea that those things are true. At this point, there is such limited information --

GLENN: Except for this: I want everyone in the audience to make up their mind right now.

PAT: If it is true, does it matter?

GLENN: Does it matter? Does it matter?

PAT: It's the Bill Clinton situation.

GLENN: Yeah. This is going to drag on for months, if not years.

PAT: If it's true, does it matter? Do you care about this guy's character at all?

GLENN: Yeah. Is there anything in this story that matters?

STU: If it were true.

GLENN: If it's true.

STU: I don't think it's true, and I don't think there's any reason to think it is at this point.

PAT: Yeah, I don't --

GLENN: I agree. At this point, there's not.

STU: But there's other reasons why it's important information. And we can get into that.

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.