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

Pulpit Freedom Sunday

September 27, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On Thursday's radio show, Glenn invited Pastor Jim Garlow onto the show to discuss Pulpit Freedom Sunday.The event is designed to raise awareness about the fact that pastors are not allowed to speak up about political issues from the pulpit without losing their tax-exempt status. Garlow and other pastors want to fight back against the idea that politics have no place in discussions within the church. You can catch the whole interview in the clip above from radio. Read more on these issues at TheBlaze.

 

Read a Rush transcript of the interview below:

GLENN:  Pastor Jim Garlowe is a church in San Diego.  This is a church that has stood in California and has stood against all odds and the attacks on this church are just staggering.  They have tried to put this church out of business, and  they're not going to step down. He is here because he is seeing over and sheparding a program.  How many years have you been doing this?  

 

           VOICE:  This is only my second year. 

 

GLENN:  What the government is telling you that you can't get involved in politics that is an out‑and‑out unconstitutional lie.  They want it to be challenged in court because they know it's unconstitutional. 

 

VOICE:  Years ago Lyndon Baines Johnson returned from Texas angry at two businessmen.  They opposed him through 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations.  He was going through the Senate was an overhaul of the tax code.  He asserted a few words called the Johnson Amendment.  They didn't have churches in mind.  They had just had these two guys he was mad at. Even the Internal Revenue Service doesn't know.  So the result over all of these years pastors have backed away from fear, and people in the pew have bought into the cultural myth of separation of church and state.  So pastors aren't speaking out on issues. They bought into a cultural myth thinking as pastors we wouldn't speak politically if we got the tax exemption.  The tax exemption comes from our founding fathers.  Knowing if the government can tax and they can control and the government can destroy.  Based upon that separation, there have been no taxation of churches.  There should be no government intrusion into the pulpit and so an entire movement has developed. 

 

GLENN:  This is really important because of everything that we're facing now with the President, this week coming out and laying the groundwork for no blasphemy laws for Islam or any religion. Uh‑huh.  The way we are moving and the press and freedom of speech is overrated, and the rest of the world doesn't agree with it.  And America needs to grow up, and starts moving the way of the rest of the world.  It is if we control the speech of pulpits.  The pulpits are the most important thing.  Jim I know when we first met it was right before Restoring Honor in Washington D.C..  you were one of the few that stood up, and you were bold at the time, and I hadn't seen a lot of the bold preachers or priests or rabbis.  They were being quiet.  Now a lot of them are standing up, and they're not being quiet.  Because they know it's over if they don't. 

 

VOICE:  It is over.  It's changed dramatically even the last few years.  I'm amazed what has happened in the area of religious liberty.  Those that are discerning know you can have religious liberty and have radicalists coming at the same time in the nation.   That line is sliding very rapidly. 

 

GLENN:  I know.  That's what a church is for to tell you what the parameters are.  I don't need somebody to tell how to vote.  To tell me the standard God's standard that he holds.  And then I can Judge myself.  But you can't even talk about the standard.  We're moving to a place where you can't talk about that standard because it's political or racist or sexist. 

 

VOICE:  The Internal Revenue Service would say that we can.  Now that the people in the pew oftentimes have this wrong understanding pastor if you're going to speak that way I'll find myself another church.  Consequently alliance of religious liberty, and hand selected 33 pastors in 2008 to intentionally challenge the Johnson Amendment.  The Johnson Amendment says we cannot oppose or endorse a candidate directly or indirectly.  So pastors are afraid of it.  They don't want to lose their tax exemption.  They recorded their sermons, and sent them to the court.  There's a Damocles sword threatening pastors if you do this.  They sent in their sermon nothing happened.  In 2009 84 pastors exercised their constitutional rights but violated the Johnson Amendment which we believe is unconstitutional.  And they sent their sermons. Nothing happened.  The next year 2010 100 pastors did it.  Last year 539 pastors did it, this year around 1,100 have signed up.  We anticipate it will be around 1,500 or more masters. 

 

GLENN:  If you're a pastor.  You go to a parish and you want your priest to be involved in this what do. 

 

VOICE:  They go to pulpitfreedom.org.  And October 7th is pulpit freedom Sunday.  Most of us are doing it in solidarity October 7th.  They can sign up at pulpitfreedom.org. This applies to a liberal left wing church.  It was replies to everybody.  We say there should be no governmental intrusion.  They monitor our speech to see what we're saying.  We encourage people to go to pulpitfreedom.org. 

 

           GLENN:  If they do this, and the Internal Revenue Service decides to go after them. 

 

VOICE:  There are 2200 attorneys prepared to defend us pro bono. It used to be the church would roll over and play dead.  If a church lawyers up, the Internal Revenue Service strings it along for a couple of years and then say we're going to close your case, and just don't do it.  The alliance defending freedom is this group of attorneys saying this is unconstitutional based on the First Amendment.  We're absolutely making it nationwide very open posting our names and sending in our sermons saying sue us, so we get this to court, and get this defined and taken care of. 

 

GLENN:  You don't have to worry as a church you won't have to worry about being strung along.  The attorneys will do it. 

 

VOICE:  There are attorneys all across America. 

 

GLENN:  Are you going to be saying to vote for one person. 

 

VOICE:  I will walk through the biblical principles, and where the candidates stand on the issues. 

 

GLENN:  There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

VOICE:  Any follower of Jesus Christ would not want to vote for a candidate that is defying biblical principles. 

 

GLENN:  I don't have a problem.  I do have a problem vote Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.  Not a legal problem.  I don't want my pastor saying that. 

 

VOICE:  If somebody doesn't wan tto hear it that they can go to another church.  We don't want the ‑‑ the issue is who decides what a pastor says? Is it going to be the state ultimately or that pastor and the church.  We're contending ‑‑ we're not even saying a pastor has to endorse or condemn a candidate. 

 

GLENN:  The problem is that our churches have stopped saying if you believe the Bible, I mean ‑‑ my daughter she went with a friend to a Catholic Church that's run by a priest who is ex communicated by the Catholics.  And I said did he start his own church.  That's not a Catholic Church.  That's not a Catholic Church.  I don't have a problem with you disagreeing.  You want to do stuff.  When you go to church I don't understand the people that don't buy into it.  Why are you there? What are getting out of it if you can't get somebody standing up there here's the principle, and here's how we apply it, and live your life according to these rules.  Otherwise what are you doing? How many people do you think go to church who're just are going there because I don't know ‑‑ I don't even know. 

 

VOICE:  We're told only 9% of the people in the pew of a church know how to apply the scripture to life.  And in other words have a biblical world view.  9 out of 10 do not.  Are any of our communities more righteous or less righteous.  We had this privilege in America for 166 years until it was taken away in 1954, and it was working very good at that time. 

 

GLENN:  Look at our world.  Some things have gotten better, but a lot of things have gotten worse. 

 

VOICE:  Think what would happen if 350,000 churches would have been saying to the electorate we should be choosing the people to represent us in Washington D.C. thou shalt not steal from future generations.  That's a moral biblical issue.  Our nation is in economic suicide because of a failure to follow scriptural principles.

 

GLENN:  Go to pulpitfreedom.org. It has to be reversed.  It has to be put to rest.  Pulpit freedom.org. Sunday October 7th.  Make sure that your church is participation.  Quickly how is your wife. 

 

VOICE:  She's doing well.  We're moving on this cancer journey.  It's come back seven times in five years.  It's been a long walk here.  We're moving forward.  She's having some good days recently. That's why I'm able to be here. 

 

GLENN:  You want a good pastor or good church it's the Garlowes in San Diego. 

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.