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

Stu finds his happy place, tries to keep sanity among insane news

June 13, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Stu filled in for Glenn on TV last night and gave a solid monologue that featured him trying his best not to let the aggravating news of the day ruin his mood. It proved to be harder than it sounds, given the extremely frustrating news breaking this week about the increasing NSA scandal and immigration battle.

Tonight, I want to begin with the immigration bill. The bill has Republicans divided. It’s 1,076 pages, fully endorsed by Barack Obama. That should be enough to unite Republicans against it, right?

Normally, I would’ve read the bill, of course, before hammering it, just to be sure this wasn’t an actual attempt by Obama to cede some ground and compromise, but I value my time. And all you have to do is listen to the way supporters are talking about it to know that passing this bill is like buying a lifetime subscription to progressive porn.

Of course, Obama’s version of compromise over the years has been I’m totally willing to compromise as long as they are willing to accept every one of my ideas. We can work together. I’ll write the bill. You vote for it. I mean, Obama couldn’t even bring himself to approve a bill opposing the slaughter of babies born after botched abortions. Remember that Gosnell guy? I mean, Obama didn’t want to ban all of that because he was more concerned with the oh-so-slippery slope that leads to more babies remaining alive. And Lord knows we can’t be punishing people with babies. I mean, that’s not right.

You don’t have to see every aspect of this bill when you see what supporters are saying about it. Marco Rubio has had some good moments in the past, but now he’s part of this Gang of Eight, and that doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Even the Heritage Foundation is calling him out. Here’s a rising star of the GOP pushing amnesty. Progressives must think they’ve died and gone to heaven.

What is Rubio thinking? Did the NSA get to him? Are there Rubio wiener pics out there somewhere they’re holding him hostage with? And by Rubio wiener pics, I don’t mean Rubio with Anthony Weiner, although I guess you never know, and who am I to judge? Look, I’m trying to follow Glenn’s lead here and build bridges with those whom I disagree, find areas we unite on and start from there. I’m really trying, but they’re just being so stupid – really, really stupid.

You want me to take you seriously on immigration reform, and you come at me with it’s not amnesty or anything like that. It’s just a pathway to citizenship, and that pathway to citizenship isn’t conditional on securing the border, and it doesn’t punish anyone who’s broken the law, at least not beyond a slap on the wrist. Really? What kind of bridge can I build with that?

The only bridge idiotic progressive ideas like that make me want to build is a bridge to a remote, uninhabited island off the coast of Belize. And when I get there, I will blow the bridge up so I never have to hear them again – ever, ever, ever, ever again.

You might notice here that the whole be nice and be like Mahatma Glenndhi thing is kind of going a little bad right now. It’s something I need to work on a little bit, but I’m going to keep trying. And this could help. I did catch a little MSNBC last night. One of the hosts, it was either Chris Maddow or Rachel Hayes – I couldn’t tell by looking at them – said something that actually sounded sane.

VIDEO

Chris Hayes: In the abstract, do you think it’s okay for the government to be able to access millions of Americans’ phone records and Internet activity as long as those tools are just for catching terrorists, and they’re never, ever abused? You would be tempted to say yes. That’s totally okay. But there’s a pretty major sticking point, and that is the as long as it’s not abused part, because history tells us that is not actually a thing, a non-abused massive governmental surveillance apparatus. That is not what Dr. Martin Luther King tells us.

I love that. That is not actually a thing. It’s quite an impressive admission by a Progressive, since Progressives usually believe government should be in control of as much as possible. Unless I forgot that I took heroin for the first time last night or something, this was actually a good, honest argument made by Hayes on MSNBC. He made good points, points you’d agree with.

Moments like that make me feel like building Gandhi bridges again, like we can get somewhere. Maybe there is some hope, but then I went on Twitter, and it’s back to work on my bridge to Belize. “One of the most disturbing details hinted at but not quite confirmed is the idea that the NSA is ‘storing’ everything it collects.” That’s a great point, but not quite confirmed?

Chris, I mean, come on. Don’t tell anyone. This is the NSA’s 1.5 million square foot data collection superstructure in Utah. Yeah, I’m pretty sure the “data collection” in the title refers to data collection. Now, I’m not going to go down this road. I’m not going to do it. I’m not going down negative town. A guy on MSNBC actually did a really good monologue about the size of government, and I’m complaining. It’s ridiculous. I need to find my happy place. I’ve just got to be glad.

Honestly, when someone this blinded by Obama love is starting to turn, it’s a miracle Obama’s approval rating isn’t even lower. It’s finally starting to drop. Right now, his approval rating stands at 47%, but his approval rating should be more like 4.7%. He’s a borderline superhero for enduring what he’s endured – Benghazi, the AP scandal, the Fox News scandal, the drone stuff, the IRS targeting conservatives scandal, the NSA thing.

And his best excuse is usually like, Yeah, it wasn’t me. I just found out about it, you know, in the news. I was watching the news, and I saw it, just like you. Not to mention the new normal is gas permastuck at three to four bucks a gallon, and unemployment is north of 7%. Who is still supporting this guy? He never had Conservatives. He never had Libertarians. What about Progressives? They were whining about Bush surveillance programs, and Obama has just grown them.

By the way, welcome to our gigantic NSA audience listening to the show and reading the e-mails we send during the commercial breaks. Liberals should be mortified as well. I mean, he’s arming radical extremists in Syria. Gay activists, he’s done nothing for you except say he likes you. Where’s the proposal to legalize gay marriage if you’re so concerned, Mr. President?

Environmental activists, he’s done nothing for you either. Where’s the cap and trade he was promising you all the time in the campaign? Who’s left? Can we build bridges with the left on some things, yes. Here’s Chris Hayes again, talking with of all people Julian Bond.

VIDEO

Chris Hayes: There’s been some polling that suggests that Democrats have had quite a change of heart on this issue, and I think part of that is just the natural way that trust works in a political system. People are inclined to trust Barack Obama if they’re Democrats for all sorts of reasons. They feel their world views align.

What do you have to say to folks that find themselves conflicted by the news this week but have a tendency to trust someone like Barack Obama, who they feel is a good person with a good vision, and they voted for, and they support?

Julian Bond: I’m conflicted too. I have a lot of trust. I want to trust, but I’ve seen this happen before. I’ve seen us go down this road before, and I’m afraid we may well go down this road right now. I don’t see anybody stopping it or telling me that we’re not doing it. Just telling me to trust people is not enough for me.

Yes, even if it’s your guy, when government is too big, you’re going to end up in an ugly place. I’m not sure why the left can’t apply that logic to healthcare, taxes, the IRS, global emission schemes, and everything else, but I’ll take it. That’s someone on MSNBC who was at least honestly considering the facts and talking about the truth as he sees it. And then you have the other side, this idiot.

VIDEO

Chris Matthews: His whole life has been crystal clear and clean as a whistle and transparent. We know his whole life through all the great, excellent education he’s had, the good work, pro bono work he’s done throughout his life. He’s never been a money grubber. He’s never done anything wrong in his life legally, ethically, whatever. His family is picture-perfect, the way he’s raised those daughters. Everything is clean as a whistle, and yet they just refer to him as evil. They just refer to him as – I just gotta believe it’s ethnic with these people. They’ve just got a problem with this guy being president.

If only we racists had some other basis to oppose this president on, like 800 scandals happening simultaneously. You’re so onto us, Chris. There are no bridges to be built there. But tonight we have the latest on all the scandals Chris Matthews doesn’t know anything about, including the NSA, where the smear campaign on Edward Snowden is already going on, reporting, you know, there’s reports attacking his credibility, attempting to poke holes in his story.

He spoke from hiding this week and said he’s neither a traitor nor a hero but an American. After the girlfriend he abandoned was identified by the media – kind of appears he’s not as smart as we all thought he was. But the administration is standing by PRISM, arguing that it’s not a snooping program but a data management tool. Belize sounds so, so, so, so nice right about now.

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.