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

Untold History: Edison and the botching of the electric chair

July 28, 2014
Wilson

Writer

Below is a rush transcript of this segment:

I want to tell you a story about a guy you never heard of before, William Kemmler. He lived in New York City, a pretty bad guy, a drunk, very abusive to his wife, his child, ugly. He was a vegetable cart salesman, and he would take his vegetables and stuff out, and he would get the food from the farmer's market, stack up his cart, push his push cart out and sell it all day, he'd come home, start drinking and beat his wife.

One day, he came home and I don't remember what the scrabble was about, but all the neighbors heard it, and he went downstairs and he went back to his cart -- trying to remember what he used. I think it was a tapper or 2-by-4, but he went back upstairs, in front of his child, he beat his wife to death. Blood splattered everywhere. He throws the weapon down, walks out in the hall. Everybody in the building had heard it. Everyone was standing out in the hall. As he came around, splattered in blood, he looked at the crowd in the hallway and he said well, they'll hang me for this. He went outside, police came, arrested him.

It was one of the more famous murders in New York City. New York City at the time was a very rough and gruesome place, especially in the Tenderloin District. This is 1890, when political corruption had gone awry, but there was something else that was going on.

Before this murder, for about five years, there was a dentist up in Buffalo, who had written Thomas Edison over and over again, and said there's got to be a more humane way of killing people than hanging. It's barbaric. How can we do it? You are the smartest man in the country.

Thomas Edison wrote back I have no stake on this. I don't know how to help you. The guy kept writing him over and over. Edison, you know, was perturbed by this guy. What does he have to do with me? But that

letter kept coming.

It was sitting on his desk one day, when everyone was up in arms about Kemmler. Edison was trying to stop Tesla's new radical idea of AC. DC was where Edison put all his money. That's a battery, but date, it was a

power plant. A power plant would have been about every two blocks, no more than a mile away, and this would have to be some sort of a coal-fired or diesel-fired generator. I think it was coal-fired at the time and they would have to keep the again rater running all the time to keep your electricity running in your house, and it was now battery-powered, but then, little teeny generators all over the country. That was Edison's idea.

Well, Tesla thought that was ridiculous. You can't have all these generators running every wrote, so he thought of alternating current, AC. That's where we get our plug, our outlets are AC outlets.

Well, Edison had all his money in DC. Edison had all the power, literally, the power in Wall Street and the power of the government. He needed to start some way to thwart Tesla. So what he had done, just google search a couple things today. Google search Topsy the Elephant.

This came after the turn of the century, but in the 1880 an '90s, Edison actually hired a really sick, almost Mengele-like doctor to go around in the towns, all around the country and electrocute with this new AC power, new AC current, electrocute horses and cows and sheep and dogs. It made people violently ill. The doctor would say, just want you to know, this is DC power. Look, I can hold onto it and it shocks you, but doesn't kill you, but let me show you what AC can do. It will kill you dead. You don't want this sitting in your home? How many of us will die because of Tesla and that greedy Westinghouse? Let me show you what happens to a dog.

He would fry a dog, kill a horse. Edison himself, after the turn of the century, just out of sheer spite, electrocuted an elephant. Topsy the Elephant, you can see it on Edison vision, Edison films. He was proud of it. Look it up. Google it.

The reason I bring this story up is because at the time, he couldn't convince the American people, so he decided he would embrace AC. He would embrace Tesla. And say that is really good for something. There's progress for you. We can use this to electrocute people. So because the world or the country was so enamored with the brutal killings that William Kemmler did, Edison used that as the case. He wrote the doctor in Buffalo, New York and said I know what to do. You need to Westinghouse Mr. Kemmler. Westinghouse has this new AC power. I have been saying how dangerous it is.

While Kemmler was in the prison for about two years, because this went on and on. They could have hung him, but they wanted a new humane way. So Edison went and he testified and said this is the way. The doctor that went around, the sick doctor that went around electrocuting horses and -- testified this is the way to do it. Do you have the volts right? You sure we can kill them quickly?

Well, while this was going on, Kemmler, now away from alcohol, now being preached to by the guards and by the warden, had happen change of heart.

He accepted his consequence, knew he had to die, wanted to die, but didn't look forward to it with glee, kill me now. He wanted to go meet Jesus. He knew the only way is if he asked true forgiveness, then accepted the consequences of his actions. At the end, he was actually preaching to the other cell mates, the other people on death row. When the warden eventually came in, the warden was crying, he didn't want to kill him. He knew he had to. Kemmler said don't worry about it. It's my actions that brought this on.

When they strapped him to the electric chair, Kemmler knew that it was a big deal and knew that if it didn't go well, it would hurt the warden. So as they strapped him in, they shaved his head, put a sponge on his head and strapped all this sponge with water, dripping down his face, they strapped his arms in, he said warden, because there were people from The New York Times, people from all over the press, witnesses there, they were all -- I need to talk to you for a second. The warden came over. He said I need to talk to you privately. The warden leaned right into him. He whispered, 'This is not going to go well for you if

I jerk too much. You don't have the straps on my arms tight enough. Please have someone tighten them.'

The warden could barely hold back the tears. He asked for a guard to tighten them back up again. Then they threw the switch. The generator was down below. All the lights dimmed and the juice ran through Kemmler's body. It reason through for I don't know how long, and they stopped. And he was pronounced dead. Then he moved. They listened to his heart. And the people in the room cried out, 'Dear God, he's still alive!'

They scrambled and they turned the juice on again, and they turned the juice on so long to kill him. Reports will say -- there were erroneous reports that he was actually set on fire. I believe he was actually set on fire. I believe that was the Edison machine that tried to lessen the effects, because the reports that I have read was that he was set on fire, that people were vomiting, that people couldn't get out fast enough, because of the stench of the burning flesh. Edison was never, ever questioned or held responsible in any way for that electrocution.

The reason I tell you this story today is because there is a --there's something that happened in Arizona. A man was given the death penalty. He was executed, and he lived. Now, there are some reports saying this was cruel and unusual punishment, because he was groaning, coughing, gasping for air. Others say that's not true. I don't know what the truth is. I don't know what the truth is.

But there's two things that have to be brought up: One, whether we agree with the death penalty or not is beside the point. We have the death penalty in certain states. If we are going to do the death penalty, it needs to be done correctly, swiftly, quickly. I don't know why we don't have a firing squad anymore. You have not 10, 12, 15 people, put a couple of bullets in, make sure they are marksmen, shoot them in the head. That's if you believe in the death penalty. If you don't, then let's make that case. But if you do, what's the fastest way to kill someone? We don't stone people, we don't do what Edison did. And Edison, the worst, I mean -- I hope Edison had a lot of time to think about it in the eternal courts of what he did somewhere for money. But we do the right thing.

So there's point number one. But a bigger point, because it is about us, is what's now happening on the message boards. What's happening on comment sections, what's happening online, what people are actually saying about this guy. And it's the same story we're hearing, no matter what it is, whether it's about Israel, whether it is about the border, or this execution. Yeah, well, look what happened. Look what's been going on for so long. For instance, Israel. Yeah, but this has been going on for a long time. You don't know how disenfranchised and humiliated they were. Whatever. I got it. With the border. Yeah, but this is destroying our country and we have been talking about this for a long time.

I got it. I got it. Justifiable anger. In this case, this guy's been waiting for 25 years. How long do we have to wait? What are all of them saying? What do all those have in common? They all have one thing in common. I want justice. I want justice. When the government loses a handle on justice, we lose a handle on our mercy, because we get angry.

Now, I don't think that the average person is what we're reading on the message boards, the comment sections. I don't think those people are, but I don't know anymore. I don't know anymore. I choose to believe that that is the vast minority, and I really, truly believe it. But I will tell you I don't want to believe the other. I don't want to live in that world where everyone is ugly and dark, because if that's really the way we are, then we are so far lost, the Constitution, everything else, we are going to become Nazi Germany. If that is really who we are, where we don't care and say well, I don't care. Torture him. Kill him, who cares. If that's who we are, kill all the Jews. Let those people on the border just starve. If that's who we are, we are already lost and too far gone, but I don't think we are.

This is why we have to talk about justice. Freedom is a concept, is a luxury, is a luxury for society that pays attention, but we are not even paying attention, so how can we possibly teach freedom when there's no justice? Because what everybody says about freedom, yeah, but what do you do about the bad guys. Well, you don't have an answer for that, because how do I make things -- how do they make things more free, when justice isn't being served under this system?

We have to look for the ways to be just and merciful. We have to boil it down, stop look at the big concepts for a while, and start -- or the small concepts and start looking at the fundamentals, just the fundamentals. And we have to be those people that begin to demand justice on all fronts. If there's an injustice anywhere, there's an injustice everywhere, so we must start to train ourselves to care about the other person's injustice, even though it is not ours, because quite honestly, it is easy to fight for our injustice. It is really hard and I think it's the only when that gives us credibility, when we fight against the injustice against someone else we don't agree with. And that's where we need to be on the front line.

This is a battle, this is a revolution, but it is a revolution of the mind and the heart first.

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.