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

This is the quality that all leaders should have

November 04, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Authenticity. It's something that certainly seems to be in short supply in America today, especially when it comes to our leaders. Do you feel like you know what any of the politicians in Washington really believe? Or even why they believe it? With few exceptions, you probably don't. And that's a big, big problem - because America has changed and the people demand authenticity and character from our leaders.

On the radio show today, Glenn explained exactly what he wants out of leaders - and it's a lesson every poltician needs to learn.

Below is an edited transcript of Glenn's monologue on authenticity:

We live today in a society of misfits and underdogs and tramps. Everybody today is weird. The days of sitting in an office wearing a suit and tie or a skirt and a blouse while taking orders from a boss or taking dictation rapidly coming to an end. We feel more free to dress casually. We feel more free to question leaders. We feel more free to shave every third day, at most.

Walk into a Starbucks at peak hours, you see it. This is America. Some are in line, some are in a hurry, some are seated alone, some are sitting there with their computer or tablet, some are seated together having personal or business discussions, but I will tell you it is not the coffee shop of 1958. And that's a good thing.

But now look at the Republican Party. Let's look at Mitt Romney during his campaign, George W. Bush in the White House, or his father. Look at Ronald Reagan as president, Ford or Nixon. White shirts, neatly pressed suits, neatly parted hair, fathers who were king of their castle, fathers know best, 'my way or the highway' kind of dads. And there's nothing wrong with this.

When Reagan, however, was on his ranch, that was a different thing because it bucked that image that the Hollywood crowd and the progressive left liked to create for Ronald Reagan. It changed who you knew he was. When he was in jeans and a flannel shirt and he was on the back of his horse, you knew who he was, the true Ronald Reagan. He should have spent more time there.

I don't know about you, but as a voter I'm not looking for a dad. I don't need another dad. I got one. And when I was under his roof and he was paying the bills, I followed his rules.

What I do want is a politician that has strong morals, strong beliefs, convictions, somebody who will actually stand up for what they believe and know what they believe.

When I did my interview with FOX, it was the strangest interview I've ever had in my life. Roger Ailes had invited me for dinner, and I sat down for dinner, and he asked me some of the strangest questions I've ever been asked. I mean, it was a genius interview, it really was. I sat down and he said to me, "What'd you think of the Korean War," something like that. And I happened to be reading something at the time about that time period. So I skated.

The third question was, "What did you think of the China summit in 1972?" And I looked at him and I said: "You know what, Mr. Ailes? I could bluff right now, I could bluff and I could tell you a bunch of stuff that I'm pulling out of the air but I have a feeling you're smart enough to know that I'm completely bluffing. So I'm going to do something that could blow this whole interview, but that's okay. Uh... I have no idea about that treaty and the summit. I have no idea, and I'd completely be bluffing if I said otherwise."

He said, Hmmm. And then sat in silence for about five minutes and said nothing. And neither did I. And I was like, "Well, that was a short interview. That was good."

He just kept throwing me up against the wall. I think I lost about 8 pounds sitting at a meal with that guy. It was brilliant. I don't know if he does this to other people, but it was absolutely brilliant.

At the end, he got up from the table and I thought, "I'll never see this guy again." He got up from the table and he said, "Young man, it's good to be with people who actually know what they believe, but more importantly, know why they believe it. We'll talk again."

And that was it.

That's really what I want from a candidate. I want somebody who not only knows what they believe, but I want to know why they believe it. I want to know that they know why they believe it.

In fact, forget about politics. I want that in life. If I have a boss, that's what I want from a boss. That's what I want from coworkers. It's what I want from employees. Why do you believe that? Why'd you do that?

I want somebody who I could actually sit down with at a Starbucks and have a real conversation. I'm not looking for an authoritarian figure. I want somebody who understands what it's like to be out in the real world.

Do you know when they -- when they put this healthcare thing together, they didn't have anybody who had actually started a business before. What a surprise. They're not surrounded by anybody who runs a business or has ever run a business. They don't know. And that's why it's running so poorly: Because they don't put any stock. You didn't build this. The government did. They just really believe that running a business just happens: You open up the door, you sell stuff, you rip people off, you go home at night and count your money. That's what they really believe business is and so when they had to do something that revolved around business, it didn't work.

You know, authoritarian figures, we talk about dictators being bad, but Father Knows Best I get. I get. It's not a dictator that's setting boundaries and raising responsible kids. Dictators don't do that. Dictators set rules and treat you like a child, but we're equals, aren't we? Aren't we equals? If I elect you to a job, aren't you an equal? Do you feel that anybody in Washington, Republican or Democrat, are treating you like an equal? That's the image they try to give to everybody.

I'm not looking for an authoritarian leader. I'm looking for a leader of individuals and one who understands the individual, a leader who speaks from the heart, a leader who knows who he is, authentically knows who he is, isn't afraid to show it, a leader who isn't all about himself but is about the individual. They may not know the individuals by name or anything else but knows that that's really what it's all about.

Put aside the ideological differences that we might have. Those are important, but not the purpose here. What the conservatives need, what libertarians need, what TEA Party people need is Reagan on his ranch, Harry Truman in his Buick. When Harry Truman went home from the president, he didn't take a helicopter to a plane. He said, "Pull the Buick up." They said, "Mr. President, you haven't driven for a long time." He said, "I know. I want to drive home." In fact, he drove home. He said, "I've never been on the new highway system. I want to drive home." So he drove home. Cops stopped him halfway home. Bess slid over on those big bench seats and said, "Officer, would you tell him he's driving too slow?" He said, "Mrs. Truman? Mr. President?".

We want a leader who just wants to be a normal guy, a leader who listens, a leader who cares, a leader who will sit down and have a real conversation, and it's not about what's after the presidency. Not somebody who comes across as a guy like that, but somebody who is a guy like that.

So many politicians, including TEA Party politicians say, "What America deserves...the American people deserve better...Our Constitution clearly states that all men are created equal." Every time I hear one of these guys say something like that, I feel like they're talking to the room. They're talking to this big collective thing. You see it in the Senate, you see it in the House, you see it in the White House, you see it on the campaign trail. It's like you're watching C-Span all the time.

Tell me who you are. Tell me a story about what America is, but actually believe that story. Say "you" when you talk. Talk to me one on one. Reach down. Take a sip of coffee and have a real conversation. Tell me that you hear what I'm saying but "You know, I think I disagree with you." Even if you know I'm going to dislike it. I'd much rather have an authentic leader, an authentic human than anything we're seeing prop up.

Tomorrow is election day and there's more choices in front of America, and we will indeed make those choices one way or another. But we will make the choice of more authoritarian rule, and that comes from the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans are just as bad, gang. Boy, did I used to get yelled at for that. "Stop saying the Republicans are just as bad." They are. In fact, they may be worse. Because at least with the Democrats, they're not saying that they're against authoritarian rule. They're not saying "I'm so against big government" and then give it to you.

Tomorrow we make some more decisions, but every day we make decisions. Every day we decide who we're going to be.

I will tell you that in many ways I'm really optimistic. In many ways I know that what's coming will be good. Might be painful along the way, but it will be good. And my imagination, as big as my imagination is, I can't imagine what God has in store. I can't imagine what you're doing in your life. I can't imagine all of the things that are happening all around the world that are good right now. But I know they'll happen. The question is will we be brave enough to be ourselves? Will we be brave enough and wise enough to choose somebody who really is real? Will we be brave enough to say they don't all have to be that way? They don't all have to be on the take.

Did you see Mike Lee had a ten minute ovation? I think people came out to the park, so they had to stand. But a ten-minute ovation for Mike Lee on Saturday. Do you know that Ted Cruz's popularity rating is at 80% here in the state? You're not hearing that, are you? And by the way, it's not 80% Republican in Texas. I don't know if you know that. That tells you something. That tells you something: That people want somebody just to say "This is who I am and this is what I'm going to do.".

What's more disturbing is that we don't seem to care about it. What's more disturbing perhaps is that The New York Times, in an editorial, said that he didn't lie, he didn't really lie. When he said you can keep your doctor and you can keep your health insurance and that they had the studies that showed that up to 80 million people would lose their health insurance, now we find out, this week we find out that that number is actually 125 million, half of the population of the United States? They knew half of the population of the United States would lose their doctor and their health insurance and yet, he went on the road over and over and over and over and over again and said "You'll be able to keep your doctor if you like them, you'll be able to keep your health insurance" when they knew half of the population of the United States would lose their health insurance. And the New York Times said he misspoke. Boy. I think we all need a new dictionary because you know what? We've created the Tower of Babel because it's like babbling to me.

I have no idea what anybody's even talking about anymore.

I speak a different language. That language is common sense. Things that you don't have to teach people. They just find them to be self-evident.

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.