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

Allen West to Glenn Beck: Obama’s speech was ‘weak and whiny’

September 07, 2012
Wilson

Writer

What did Allen West think of President Obama's speech last night at the DNC? Let's just say he was less than impressed! Watch the interview in the clip above from radio!

Transcript of interview is below:

GLENN: We're actually having this ‑‑ Allen, are you there?

WEST: I'm here.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: There he is.

GLENN: You're not going to kill me for saying that, are you?

WEST: No. I'm such a peaceful person.

GLENN: I know you are.

WEST: You know really I'm a passivist.

GLENN: No, I know.

WEST: And I'm running for the Nobel Peace Prize.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: I know you are.

WEST: What I should potentially do, for what I could potentially do.

GLENN: You are such a wallflower lately. I don't really know if you've said what you really mean.

WEST: I think that's why the liberals don't like me.

GLENN: What did you think of the speech last night? What did you think of the whole mess?

WEST: Well, I have to tell you that I think it was a very weak and whiney attempt for, you know, President Obama to get another four years when everything about him from the economic security, energy security, and national security aspect, his policies have been a failure. When you think about what he said early on, that if he could not turn this economy around in four years, then he's a one‑term proposition, the fact that he gave us an almost trillion dollar‑plus stimulus and said that it will keep our unemployment, you know, below 8% and promise right now that it will be about 5.6%, it's just more falsifications and more deceit and just trying to get us to continue to trust him when I don't think he has any type of ability whatsoever. We elected a community organizer and this is what we get.

GLENN: You know, I was struck last night that he used the word "divine providence." He talked about ‑‑

WEST: Oh, he was quoting Thomas Jefferson left and right.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. He actually, for the first time in his presidency, I think he actually got it right when he said all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator.

WEST: Yeah, but, you know, Glenn, come on. This is the day after the little fiasco on the delegate floor when we found out that they had taken out, you know, reference to God in their platform and also recognizing Jerusalem is the rightful capital of the modern day state of Israel and, of course, we all saw what happened when they tried to have the floor delegate debate based upon the amendment by Governor Ted Strickland. So for him to all of a sudden, you know, find the godly heritage of our constitutional republic was ‑‑ I think it was more of a show than anything else.

GLENN: Let me ‑‑ let me play just a clip of Cardinal Dolan from last night. I mean, I think this guy has, has a made right out of steel. Listen to this prayer.

CARDINAL DOLAN: Grant us the courage to defend it, life without which no other rights are secure. We ask your benediction on those waiting to be born that they may be welcomed and protected.

GLENN: I mean, you've got NARAL on the docket to speak and then he gets up and he says this.

WEST: Well, yeah. And I'm sure Sandra Fluke was not very happy with that, either: But you have to understand that one of the reasons why you just have to love Cardinal Dolan is that he stands by his principles and hopefully we can get more people in the Catholic church to, see that, you know, this was really not about contraception. This was about an intrusive nature of government going against the free exercise of religion thereof and having a government that would then be able to redefine or define what a religious organization or institution is.

GLENN: You know, people will ‑‑ people like Barack Obama and they haven't married in to Mitt Romney because, "You know, I don't really know what he's going to do or I don't really know if I trust him." Can you, can you put this in context of what this election is really all about?

WEST: Well, I think this election is about style versus substance. I think that this election is about a cult of personality versus someone that has a proven character and proven leadership. When I was at the RNC, I found it just incredible that people were asking me, you know, how do we know who Mitt Romney is and how does Mitt Romney, you know, tell us who he is. Well, four years ago he's the same guy that was running for president. He's been the governor of a state. He recovered our Salt Lake City Olympics which was, you know, right after 9/11, and he's been very successful in the private sector, in the business field. But yet you think about in 2008, we were pretty much forced to accept and vote for someone that we couldn't even say his middle name. And so now we're starting to discover, you know, who really you Barack Hussein Obama is and we're starting to see now his record and his policies which I think reflect the inner sanctum of the man, and these things that he believes in is inconsistent with the, you know, constitutional conservative values of this great republic. And I can say he can continue to channel, you know, Reagan or Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson or whoever, but he's just regurgitating quotes. I don't think that that's something he is truly inculcated.

And you brought it up earlier when I was listening to the show is that, you know, your formative years in life is from 0 to 10 years of age and, you know, what really is the background. I think it's a different type of background that, you know, opposed to someone like myself that was going to Atlanta Braves baseball game to look at a Joe Torre, Hank Aaron, and Rico Carty and, you know, I was there when the Atlanta Hawks first started their basketball team. So, you know, Fourth of July, having a father who served in World War II, a brother in Vietnam, it's about your experiences. And I think that's what we're starting to see, someone that really does not understand the American experience, but he can give a great speech.

GLENN: There's a story that's breaking this morning. The White House is circulating a draft of a new executive order on cyber security. This is what was kicked out by the Republicans before.

WEST: Yeah.

GLENN: It looks like he's just going to start regulating the Internet.

WEST: Yeah.

GLENN: Through executive order.

WEST: And this is what I'm talking about. When you understand what our Founding Fathers created in our government, they created a system of checks and balances and separation of power and what you're starting to see is a president that if he cannot get what he wants through the legislative process, he just does it by executive order Fiat. I mean, we are really not being governed. We're being ruled by edict. And it's interesting that this is being floated, like many other things, you know, kind of happen when we're not in session. We get back in session next Monday, but we had a very good cyber security bill that had bipartisan support. Mike Rogers from Michigan is sharp on this stuff, but it's voluntary, and we cannot start to have a government which is going to start dictating what has to happen in the Internet. And I think I just forgot the legislation that was killed that was trying to come out of the Senate that had to deal with regulating the Internet and, of course, Google and other people started to shut themselves down because of it. We can't go that path.

GLENN: The gas prices are $2 more than they were under George W. Bush.

WEST: Yeah. Remember how they were screaming? It was like $1.84 I think when the president was inaugurated and people were screaming about George W. Bush. And you're right. This is the all‑time high at this time of the year, around Labor Day, $3.79 to $3.83 depending on where you are for the average price of gasoline. And to hear the president last night talk about all the great things he's going to do for coal, well, I can tell you we have a coal generation plant here in Indiantown in Martin County and they are scared like you know what because they see what's happened in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, which is their supplier. I think you've seen about a 40 to a 44% decrease in the coal industry in some of these areas up there. Ohio is also included in that. And that's all EPA regulation. And that's going to affect the middle class as far as electricity prices.

And, you know, the president last night, you keep hearing liberals talk about the middle class and all this, but think about the commodity prices in the grocery store, think about the gasoline prices, think about the fact that in these three and a half years you've seen a 2.6 to 4% decrease in the median family income which is for the middle class, 38,000 to about 110,000. But even worse, in the black community it's 11%, Glenn. So these are the truths, these are the facts that have to get out there which the president's not going to talk about. Definitely he's not going to talk about $16 trillion debt which hit at the start of this convention.

GLENN: Allen, thank you very much. Thanks for speaking the truth and we'll talk again.

WEST: Take care, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Bye‑bye. Allen West.

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.