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

Al Gore wanted the Firenado, so why did he get denied?

November 16, 2012
Wilson

Writer

You may recall a crazy viral video a few months ago shot by an Australian filmmaker named Chris Tangey that featured something being called a Firenado. It was a tornado that was basically on fire. Naturally, Al Gore wanted to use it as evidence of global warming (which it had nothing to do with). Tangy said no - then Gore got deceptive and tried to trick him into licensing the video. Tangey didn't fall for that either.

WATCH the viral video below:

Transcript of interview below:

GLENN: All right. We want to talk to Chris Tangey. He's a guy who runs Alice Springs Film and TV out of Australia. The only reason why I know this film company is because of the Alice Springs chicken at Outback, and that's all I know. And if that's what they do in Alice Springs, I am all for a film company about it. But that's just for us Australians that know Australia so very, very well. Chris is ‑‑ he runs this film unit in Australia and he's the guy who captured, and I don't know if you've seen it, a fire tornado. And it's an amazing piece of video of a tornado out of fire. I mean, it looks like, you know, it looks like the Ten Commandments.

Well, he received a phone call and we're going to let him tell the rest of the story. Hi, Chris, how are ya?

TANGEY: Good day, Glenn. Good morning. It's five minutes into good morning here, tomorrow.

GLENN: It's midnight there?

TANGEY: Yes. Saturday morning here by five minutes. So...

GLENN: I believe because it's still Friday at the beginning ‑‑

TANGEY: I can still say good morning.

GLENN: I believe since it's Friday here we should all become Australian and take the rest of the day off. So Chris, you captured ‑‑

TANGEY: You must post me some of this chicken, too.

GLENN: Yes. You captured this fire tornado. Tell me about the phone call that you got.

TANGEY: Okay. Yeah, I got ‑‑ well, it's actually an e‑mail. I got an e‑mail from the office of Al Gore wanting to use it in his presentations for the next five years, in his PowerPoint presentations and I knew what he did. I thought, that sounds a little interesting. I've got to have a little look into a little bit more of this and research his activities in the past and what he would be likely to be using it for. So once I got through that process, I really just had come to the conclusion that I had to say no because, you know, this had nothing to do with global warming or climate change or climate disruption ‑‑

PAT: Fantastic.

TANGEY: ‑‑ whatever it's called these days, but it was a very localized event, a highly localized event that really had nothing to do with even rather, let alone climate change.

GLENN: So tell me what caused this. It's a firenado? That's what we call it here. What is it called?

TANGEY: Yeah, they call it a firenado. I mean, the proper name apparently is fire whirl. I knew nothing about it like you until I saw this thing happening in front of me. I thought, what on Earth is that. But yeah, it's apparently called a fire whirl and not many people have actually captured them particularly up this close and for that long. And it was ‑‑ the particular circumstances here were that it was on a cattle station or cattle ranch and at the bottom end of this cattle station, this fire had been burning for about ten days, probably deliberately lit. So it wasn't even a natural fire in that sense. And they had been looking after this particular mesa, this big mesa near, there's rocks down here approximately 20 kilometers away, 50 mile away, and they had been protecting that habitat. They had been living on this cattle ranch for about 55 years and there's a particular grass there called spinifex which burns incredibly hot and they had been protecting that particular patch and when this fire came in from the north and hit that patch, there's probably a big buildup of resin and oil, which is what causes this grass to burn so intensely hot that had probably built up for 50 years. So it was an incredibly localized event caused this, you know, I guess you could say unique event of that sort, some sort of unique circumstances. And that's what it was. It was an unusual fuel load at the base of it.

GLENN: Okay. So it happened, Al Gore writes you, you check him out. You're a guy who's, you don't know ‑‑ you're not paying much attention to global warming. You don't know if it's happening or not happening. What happens next?

TANGEY: Well, I got back to them and explained my circumstances and that they had told me that Mr. Gore himself had seen the video and wanted it personally. So anyway, I thought that was all over. And then a month later I got an e‑mail from somebody saying ‑‑ they were from a nonprofit organization who was doing an Internet show and they would like to use it and wanted to pay me to use it. And they called themselves the Climate Reality Project. When I did a bit of research on this, I found that it was actually the founder and chairman was actually Al Gore. Then I did a little bit of research on the producer and I actually got back to her and said, "Look, you know, I don't know what's wrong with the internal bits of Mr. Gore's organization but, you know, you're asking me again and we actually had, you know, quite a big concern about it before," and the producer actually ‑‑ I thought, well, maybe she must be ‑‑ she must be a scientist. I checked that out; no, she's not a scientist. I thought, well, maybe she's made science films before; no. And I thought, well, maybe she's made natural documentaries, nature documentaries or something; no. It turned out that her last job producing was on Inspector Gadget 2 and she lives in Los Angeles.

GLENN: Yeah.

TANGEY: She's a Hollywood producer who lives in Los Angeles, and I found that a bit astonishing as well. But anyway, the bottom line was I had to say no again because really, to use this in that context is ‑‑ you know, if I used it myself in that context, I'd say ‑‑ you know, I'd feel like I was deceiving people really.

GLENN: Right. Now, Chris, I don't know if you know about me at all here in the United States, but ‑‑

TANGEY: I do, Glenn. I used to watch you on television for many years.

GLENN: God bless you. Well, I ‑‑

TANGEY: We get all that down here.

GLENN: Well, I don't know. I mean, the pictures are upside down when you get them.

PAT: (Laughing.)

GLENN: The ‑‑ we started a network called TheBlaze and we're creating fire effects kind of like this, you know, for different reasons and I don't know what you're charging for this video, but I'd like to ‑‑ I'd like to see if we could lease it from you just for the sole purpose of pissing Al Gore off.

TANGEY: Man, I have read about you guys and I've read about all the stuff you're doing.

GLENN: Yeah.

TANGEY: And I'm with you 100%.

GLENN: Really?

TANGEY: And you guys get it for nothing.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: You are the best. Thank you. Thank you. You are the best. So what are you doing to protect it? Because these guys are really shady. Are you ‑‑ have you talked to anybody about protecting this so they don't use it?

TANGEY: Well, it's a little bit different. The copyright law is a little bit different in Australia in that we don't even have to put "copyright 2012" and your name on it. It's automatically copyrighted as soon as you create the work, they call it the work. And so it automatically is mine, and I'm the only copyright holder, and anything you've seen anywhere basically has been licensed by me. So if he was to use it, it would be a breach of copyright.

PAT: Wow, that's great.

TANGEY: What would happen then, how a little guy in the outback could take it up against a billionaire, I don't know. But maybe that could be the little, the swap deal we do for the firenado.

GLENN: That's great.

TANGEY: Your lawyers and (inaudible.)

GLENN: That's great. Chris, thank you so much and thank you for taking a stand and being smart with it. In the world where people will go for a fast buck, for you to be responsible with what you have is inspiring and I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.

TANGEY: Well, I just love you guys and your slogan, I can't recall it right at this moment, but I saw it yesterday to do with truth.

GLENN: Yeah, truth lives here.

TANGEY: Exactly what ‑‑ exactly. And I think that's exactly what we need in this world. And we need to know what we're looking at, what we're listening to, you know. How do we know otherwise.

PAT: Chris, the video is actually part of a larger documentary, right? Isn't it part of a movie?

TANGEY: No, no, no. No, no, no. No, I was actually location scouting a movie.

PAT: Oh, okay, that's where I got that.

TANGEY: I always do location scouting. So I don't know where it's going yet.

PAT: So if people want to see it, where can they go if they want to see the firenado.

TANGEY: If they search "fire tornado Australia," I think there's one on YouTube.

GLENN: Great. Thank you. We'll link to it on TheBlaze. Thank you so much, Chris. God bless.

TANGEY: Fantastic. Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: You bet. Bye‑bye. I think we should.

PAT: He's great.

GLENN: I think we should license that thing.

PAT: I think so, too.

GLENN: We should put it on a commercial and the commercial would be we really don't have use for this but Al Gore wanted it really bad and we have it and, Al, you can't have it.

PAT: It's interesting to hear that because Gore obviously doesn't care about the science involved. There is no science involved. It's not about global warming but he would have made it about that.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, he's ‑‑

PAT: To think about what he would have said about this, "Look, it's so bad that the atmosphere is creating fire tornadoes."

GLENN: He would have done it.

PAT: He would have done that.

GLENN: He would have done it.

JEFFY: But we know that now because of the call from the future.

GLENN: Our ‑‑ the call from the future?

JEFFY: Chris Tangey. He called from the future this morning.

GLENN: That's right. He did. He called from tomorrow morning.

PAT: That's right.

GLENN: So he knows.

PAT: Wow.

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.