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

Here’s Why We Need a Ban on ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Despite This Judge’s Ruling

November 21, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What happened?

A U.S. district court judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to cut funding from “sanctuary cities,” or cities that don’t comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to find and deport illegal immigrants.

Judge William Orrick issued the ruling on Monday, saying that Trump is overstepping his authority by changing policy on spending that was approved by Congress. Trump signed the executive order in January.

Is this related to “Kate’s law”?

Yes. Sanctuary cities became a national issue following outcry over 32-year-old Kate Steinle’s death in San Francisco. She was allegedly killed by an illegal immigrant firing a handgun after local authorities let him go; he had reportedly been deported five times before the incident.

Despite being controlled by Republicans, Congress hasn’t managed to take action on legislation known as “Kate’s law” that would increase criminal penalties on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, are deported and then return to the U.S.

Where did we land on this?

The bill passed in the House over the summer but has been stalled in the Senate.

Standing in for Glenn on today’s show, Doc talked about Kate Steinle’s tragic death and the importance of protecting Americans from people who feel free to cross the border and break our laws over and over.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: Jim was walking with a family friend and his daughter on a sunny day along a pier in San Francisco. If you -- if you've ever been to the piers in San Francisco, man, that is -- it's a really nice experience. And that's where Jim was. Walking with his daughter and a family friend. Just a great day at the pier.

All of a sudden, there was a loud bang. Suddenly, something was wrong with his daughter. She threw her arms around him. And she whispered, "Help me, Dad." She then collapsed in front of him.

He couldn't figure out what was wrong. She didn't have any health problems. She was a healthy girl. As she fell to the ground and he struggled to find out what was going on with his daughter, a passerby stopped to help.

Suggested they turn her over, on to her back. So they did. And as they rolled her onto her side and then to her back, they could -- they could see blood. Then they noticed a hole in her back. That hole turned out to be a bullet hole. The loud bang was a gun being fired.

Paramedics arrived. They rushed her to the hospital. And she was declared dead.

In just minutes, this father was walking with his daughter. Minutes later, she was dead.

That is the story of how Kate Steinle died, after being shot by José Zarate, two years ago. Yesterday, attorneys began their final arguments in the murder case against José. Also yesterday, a federal judge permanently blocked President Trump's executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities. Judge William Orrick said President Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

Ironic, that while final arguments are unfolding for her killer, a federal judge blocked President Trump's attempt to somehow stop sanctuary cities.

Now, we can debate back and forth. In fact, we could get great legal minds on. Constitutional experts. To say whether or not it was within the power of the president to withhold funds from somebody who is violating federal law, even though Congress has allocated those funds.

In fact, I'll even, right now, say he doesn't have the authority to do that. I'll just give that to you.

Federal Judge Orrick, if that is the case, so be it.

But at least President Trump tried to do something, which is more than I can say for most people in Washington, DC, now or in the past. At least he attempted to do something. At least he tried to do something that he made a significant campaign issue, while he was running for president. Kate Steinle and others have been killed, murdered, at the hands of illegals.

This is a national security threat, as well as a domestic security threat, once they're around. Once they're in America. And while people will cite statistics and tell you, well, there's a bunch of studies that show you that illegals commit less crimes than others, then American citizens -- does that matter? If only one illegal commits one murder, you're okay with that? How about if it's your daughter you're walking with on a sunny day, that gets murdered?

Then I'll bet, you're not as okay with it. The truth is, it is absolutely within the power of the United States to decide who enters our country. It is absolutely within our power. It is moral. It is reasonable. And it is logical to know who is coming into America.

It is also reasonable and logical and certainly not hateful, to limit who comes in America. We should have an open and active, yet monitored border.

A border that allows people to go back and forth, coming and going, for the purpose of commerce and travel, vacations. Absolutely.

But we got to know who it is. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. And it's ironic that so many people that support the idea of sanctuary cities and tell me that, you know, they commit less crimes than American citizens, are the same people who tell me that guns are a problem.

They're the ones going after specifically just guns. They're willing to go after one, one way you can kill people. One way you can be violent. Because of their agenda. But a typical lack of consistency, aren't willing to go after sanctuary cities that help protect and promote illegals, who quite often perpetrate violence on American citizens.

José had been deported five times. He was awaiting his sixth deportation. He was homeless in San Francisco at the time of the shooting. He had just finished a prison sentence for illegal reentry, when he was transferred not out of the country. But to the San Francisco county jail, to face a 20-year pot charge.

That's when they decide to let him go. why do the sheriff let him go? Because of his sanctuary city status. Because of that policy, it limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

So if he was held on some immigration issue, he was in the country illegally, they were not going to keep him. They were not going to turn him over to the federal government. They were not going to cooperate.

So you don't support sanctuary cities, fine. How do you propose we protect the Kate Steinle's of the world? And what's it going to take for you to get it? Do you have to be walking with your daughter or son on a sunny day and see them get murdered in front of you? Is that what it's going to take?

I'll bet for some people, it wouldn't even take that. That even if that happened, they still wouldn't get it. So while we're debating what should happen to José, Congress is floating the idea of amnesty. In the middle of all of this.

Her killer has still not been brought to justice. And, by the way, her story is not unique. I mean, you could go to the remembrance project. They calculate -- or, excuse me -- record. They record and promote the stories of people who were skilled or had violence perpetrated against them by illegals, fighting against this narrative that, oh, they're just here illegally. Nothing else bad happens.

Trying to keep those people's memories alive and telling the world that, hey, this is a problem. It's not unique. It's not rare. Whether it's a hit-and-run and somebody is killed. Which, I remember when I was still working at WRVA in Virginia. A couple of nuns were killed. Another guy in the community was killed, and I had interviewed his brother about it. By drunk drivers.

There has to be a way we monitor these people and make sure they're not here doing bad things. That's not immoral. That's not hateful.

But Congress -- and it's also Republicans -- aren't even considering that. You've got the courts that are fighting against President Trump and his actions against sanctuary cities. And members of Congress are not saying, hey, let's come up with some sort of sanctuary city bill, because we're the ones that appropriate money and say, if you do this, you will not have money appropriated to you.

Where is Congress on this? Their silence is deafening. Instead, they're working on amnesty. Being floated right now around Capitol Hill is another round of amnesty.

Now, we know they've been fighting for amnesty for the so-called Dreamers, seeing if they can make them legal, giving them a pathway to citizenship. But there's a bunch of Democrats and even some Republicans, that are quietly trying to come up with the proper way to craft a new amnesty message.

Look for this. Expect this in the next couple of months. They may try to tie it to some other big bill, you know, a debt ceiling raise or something like that. But they are working on it.

Now, I am willing to move a great distance off of my beliefs and what I know is right, the belief that we should not reward bad. And I will reluctantly, begrudgingly, give up the idea of legal -- of children -- the so-called Dreamers that were brought here by others being deported. I will begrudgingly come up with some way we can give them a pathway, because after all, they didn't commit the crime. Somebody else did.

But that has to be part of the deal, where we kick out everybody else, that is here illegally. I'm not willing to give an inch on that. Somebody has to be held accountable for coming here illegally. And for those Dreamers who brought them here illegally. Congress is working on amnesty. Be prepared to fight that fight in the coming couple of months. Your calls coming up next on the Glenn Beck Program.

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.