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

Glenn interviews Rick and Karen Santorum

September 07, 2012
Wilson

Writer

Former GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum and his wife Karen phoned in to radio today and talked with Glenn about the Democratic Convention and President Obama’s speech last night. Why were the Democrats so focused on talking war and not the economy?

Read the transcript of the interview below:

Rick Santorum and Karen Santorum are on the phone with us now. Karen, Rick?

VOICE: Good morning, Glenn, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. First of all, can ‑‑ how's Bella doing?

KAREN SANTORUM: Oh, she's doing great. Thank you so much for asking. And it was so nice to be with you and Tania the other night. I should have shared with you her picture. She's beautiful and healthy and we just thank God every day for her life.

GLENN: We had ‑‑ we had dinner in Dallas, what was it, two nights ago? And ‑‑

KAREN SANTORUM: Yeah, it was so fun.

GLENN: Yeah, we had dinner with this roomful of billionaires. I mean, we were the two couples that were like, we were the slugs in the room. And you guys were running for president just a few months ago. And we're sitting in this room and they're billionaires but they all were broke in the Nineties, all of them.

KAREN SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: And we talked about one of them said, you know, I had to push my hill ‑‑ my car down the hill to jump, you know, to get it ‑‑

PAT: Start?

GLENN: Yeah, pop the clutch on it to get it to start?

SANTORUM: Yeah. Well, I thought the best one, Glenn, was when he said he had to turn in his toll tag when he ‑‑ because he used a 50 cent toll when he went to work but he turned in his toll tag because if he hadn't used the toll tag, it was 55 cents. So to save 5 cents a trip, he turned in his tag and paid his cash.

GLENN: Now, these guys ‑‑

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: These guys ‑‑

PAT: That's amazing.

GLENN: ‑‑ said, I had to cancel my call waiting because it was $3 a month.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: He turned in his toll tags because it saved him an extra 5 cents a day. That's how broke they were in, like, 1996. They're billionaires now. And we were talking about, look at this country. Look at what you can do. And Barack Obama and the Democrats don't believe that any of us exist. Or that any of us are putting anything of value into our society.

We've been talking today, Karen, about how the Democrats really focused on foreign affairs and war and everything else, and they think this is going to be a winning strategy for them. I think they're wrong. I think the economy's the only thing that matters. But you have, with patriotvoices.com, a new poll that you have seen. Can you tell us about the poll? It's of mothers, right?

KAREN SANTORUM: There was a recent survey of American mothers and what it revealed was that a majority of mothers believe that this country is on the wrong track and they are very concerned about national security issues. You know, President Obama's number one responsibility is to protect us and I think what this study's showing is that he has failed miserably and moms care about that. They care about security.

GLENN: Let me just show some of the polls. The top three concerns of moms in America: Unemployment, most concern, 42%; high gas and energy prices were the number two; and third choices of the moms, hay gas prices directly responsible, energy prices. The president is on record saying his policies would make energy prices necessarily skyrocket. The cost of groceries. The average grocery is up 15% in the last 18 months. But there are some other things here. 73% of mothers are concerned about the type of nuclear strategy that President Obama might pursue.

SANTORUM: Yeah, this is ‑‑ I'm sorry. Let me jump in there.

GLENN: Go ahead.

SANTORUM: That really has to do with this whole conversation with Medvedev, that he'll be more flexible on the START II treaty which gives Russia a built‑in huge advantage on tactical. It's a huge advantage, you know, 10:1 advantage over the United States. And it's now a built‑in advantage that Barack Obama negotiated and agreed to. And said that, you know, he was going to be more flexible. And I think this, I'm convinced that they brought this issue up is because, you know, that swing vote. A lot of these moms are very concerned about this issue of security and they look around the world and they see the hostility and the brewing anger and the hatred for America and our weakness, the president bowing, the president whispering that he will be flexible and they see weakness of this president and they don't want a president who's willing to sacrifice the security of our country so expend more money on entitlement programs.

GLENN: 78% of moms think the United States should increase offshore drilling. 79% of moms think government regulations need to be trimmed to incentivize people to start small businesses are expand existing ones. 53% of moms say it was inappropriate for President Obama to tell Israel that it should alter its borders. 62 of moms are concerned that President Obama said transmit this to Vladimir to President Medvedev. When informed that ObamaCare cuts Medicare funding, only 12% of moms thought that was a good idea.

This is all upside down for the president. What do you think this means in November?

KAREN SANTORUM: I think it ‑‑

[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ].

GLENN: Wait, wait.

STU: Double response.

GLENN: Whoa, whoa, whoa.

STU: Communication between spouses is very important.

GLENN: We've got to talk to you about this. Are you guys even in the same city or the ‑‑ are you guys in the same area?

SANTORUM: Yeah, we are at the airport. We're just about to take off.

GLENN: All right.

SANTORUM: We're headed to Denver.

GLENN: You're not flying American Airlines, are you?

KAREN SANTORUM: We're not going to do that again, Glenn.

GLENN: Good. Thank you very much. All right. Tell me ‑‑ Karen, let's start with you. What do you think this means in November?

KAREN SANTORUM: I think it means that moms care more about just (inaudible). The overriding issue of concern for most of them was jobs. About half are concerned equally with energy and then the national debt and protecting America from the outside, from outside threats was huge. And I think that, you know, a lot of times moms ‑‑ I think it's an insult to women, too, is that we just care about abortion or the life issue. And it goes so far beyond that. It's ‑‑ I think that the moms care a lot more about a broader spectrum of issues, and I know for me personally and all the moms I've talked to, national security is a big deal. And, you know, things like, you know, the nuclear threats, electromagnetic pulse, things like that. You know, once moms are educated on that, they share their concerns.

GLENN: Rick?

SANTORUM: I would throw on top of that that, you know, the reason Obama talked about this last night, because it's a weakness for him. And America doesn't feel better about itself. You know, remember Obama's going to bring back this age, not only are the fees going to go back down but America's preeminence in the world and how people looked at America was going to go up and prestige was going to increase and he was going to get the Nobel Prize and it's just been a complete nose dive since then and that's a real problem because people do look at a president as someone who is, you know, respons ‑‑ that's the one thing the presidents are responsible for and that most Americans look to him with respect to our security.

GLENN: You know, I'm feeling really optimistic about the election but I was really optimistic about your election as well. So do you have any feelings, either of you, on where you think this is headed? How's Romney going to fare? Is Romney going to win or not?

KAREN SANTORUM: Oh, I'm praying he does. I'm concerned because of those issues that we're not talking about that we should be talking about and, you know, we're obviously hoping and praying he gets through. I think four years of Obama would be devastating to our country. And the effects, you know, may not be reversible. So we all just need to work really hard to help Romney get elected. But personally I'm concerned that I wish we had more issues to talk about.

PAT: Yeah, I notice that you guys have skipped the most important issue, Rick, and that's the issue that you started was the incredible war on women where you tried to remove contraception from all women and control their lives in every way. And I just, I find that missing here from the mom survey, too. They gotta be concerned about that, right?

SANTORUM: Oh, yeah, absolutely. There's a widespread fear that the government's going to come in and abolish birth control.

GLENN: Well, I have a bumper sticker. I have a bumper sticker on my car: Rick Santorum out of my fallopian tube.

SANTORUM: You have a bumper sticker on your car?

GLENN: Yeah, I do. I do. The real question there is, you have fallopian tubes?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I'm sort of ‑‑ I don't know.

GLENN: All right, guys. Thank you so much and have a safe flight and I'm glad to hear you're not flying American.

KAREN SANTORUM: Thank you, Glenn. Have a good day.

GLENN: Bye‑bye. Rick and Karen Santorum.

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.

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.