Glenn: Net neutrality is "the global warming of the Internet"

November 12, 2014

Writer

There’s a big push right now to get the government to regulate the internet in order to preserve “net neutrality” among various internet providers. The internet is one of the few truly free remaining places on the planet today. Does the internet really need the government to regulate it? Glenn explains why the push for Net Neutrality matters.

WATCH:

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Let me tell you about net neutrality. Net neutrality is a -- is the global warming of the Internet. They are saying that they need to level the playing field of the Internet and make it free. Let me tell you something. If it wasn't for the freedom of the Internet, this world and this country would be screwed right now. The only real growth that we have in the world, and you're seeing it in television and news and information. The only place you're truly free to say whatever you want, to produce whatever you want, to get it out -- man has never had a voice like he has right now. And it's all due to the Internet. And due to the fact that the government is not involved in it at all. It's working pretty well. Do I dislike buffering speeds? Yes. Am I company that should be on the other side? Probably. And here's why. These giant corporations like Comcast and Google and all these other companies, all they have to do if they want to shut people like me down is they choke down my -- my speeds. They choke down. If you -- because I'm a video provider, if they want to put me out of business, they just choke down and make it impossible to watch. Last night I was at home. I was trying to watch something -- I was trying to watch studio C with the kids and we watch it online. We just don't watch TV anymore. And I was watching online and I was on Roku and the speed was really low yesterday for some reason. It just kept stopping and starting and then stopping and then starting and buffering. Ask enough, I'm not going to watch it tonight. We did something else. That's exactly how these giant Internet providers can put people like me out of business. I don't want to go out of business. So shouldn't I saying, yes, government, because I'm somebody who's going to be targeted. I know it. Shouldn't -- shouldn't I saying, yes, government, please protect me. Oh, protect me? No. Because the government is only going to protect those who are playing ball with the government. And trust me, here is why Internet neutrality is happening. Twofold. One, political reasons. What was it that the diversity czar at the FCC said about the important revolution in Venezuela? As soon as -- as soon as Castro -- not Castro.

PAT: Chavez.

GLENN: As soon as Chavez knew that he had control of the television and radio stations, that important revolution could happen. So that's why you have a socialist Marxist at the FCC But the radio and television is over as we know it. It's just over. It's all online. So how do they get their grubby hands into it? They got their grubby hands into it the first place because they said, oh, there's only so much band space. There's only so much band width. The frequencies, the air belongs to the people. And so that's how they got into broadcast. Now they're saying, well, there's only so much band width. There's only -- really? Because I remember -- there was only so much band width. It gets better and better and better. From 1G to 2G to 4G to 16G to 375G. It's coming. It will get better, cheaper, faster. Everyone will be able to do this. It is only a matter of time.

PAT: It's already done that in such a short time.

GLENN: Correct. So what are they panicking about? One, it's about control. But the more insidious one, and we just had a meeting about this this morning, because I've got -- a lot of people from New York and from all over the country, from TheBlaze, because we're having some intensive meetings this week here on the future of our company. And so this morning about 7:00, we had a meeting. And I explained the future of the company. And I explained the future of the world in communications. And the way that Facebook is talk radio and the telephone. And I want to you listen to this. The telephone used to be one-to-one communication. I could reach out anywhere and call someone and get them one to one. But it was a device and I had to go through AT&T and everything else. Then you had talk radio. And I could listen to other people's conversations and I could listen to what they were talking about, about the news and everything else, and I could join in on that conversation. If I could get them to pick up the phone, they could screen me and then I could be part of it. What Facebook is you have that private one-on-one conversation when you want it, but you also are allowed to go in and jump into anybody else's conversation as well. So it's both the telephone and talk radio. It's a utility. It's a public utility. Maybe we should have the government run Facebook. It's a public utility. Just like the phones are. Just like radio is. It's a public utility. Don't think they won't make that. And if you think that the government will make Facebook better, what, are you 4? Now, because Facebook and the Internet is going to change everything, and I have -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Pat and Stu, if I would have said that the guys who have been sitting in my office over the last three months would even accept an appointment from me two years ago, let alone take -- get on their private jets, fly to me, come to my place of business, wait for an appointment in our lobby, and then come and sit down on the couch in my office and say, okay, do you have any ideas? We need some help. Would you have believed --

STU: No.

GLENN: They wouldn't even would have taken a meeting with me if I would have called them two years ago.

STU: Right.

GLENN: That doesn't show how cool we are. That shows how desperate they are. Okay? Why are they desperate? These giant media moguls are desperate because they know. And they all say in private conversations, every single one of them say the same thing to me. Glenn, most of the people in my own company don't even get it. It's over. It's over. They don't understand the colossal change that has coming. I know. I know. So what do we do? Here's what the big companies are going to. The Comcasts of the world. And this will happen in every single -- this will happen in the accounting. This will happen in cab drivers, truck drivers. This will happen in -- with doctors and especially universities. All of them. All of them will go the government and say, you need to protect us. You need to protect us. You need to prop us up. You got to put a gate here. So who wants that gate on the Internet? I'll tell you who wants the gate on the Internet. Comcast wants a gate on the Internet. Anybody who is a provider -- and quite honestly, I will tell you the truth. Again, a gate on the Internet actually helps me if I want to go into television. Because it stabilizes things. The meeting that I had at 7:00 this morning was, can anybody tell me what the world looks like? In five years? In 10 years? Anybody? Nope.

We just know you're going to have entertainment and information. We don't know how you're going to get it. Most importantly, we don't have any idea how to make money off of it. Now, when we say make money off of it, we're trying to innovate so we're just trying to make money to pay the bills so we can better stuff. But there are those people -- they don't give a flying rat's butt about anything. They built their systems years ago.

STU: Does the rat's butt fly? Is that what happens?

PAT: Only the butt does. The rest of the rat does not.

GLENN: So nobody cares. They've built their systems long ago. Do you think NBC cares about, we got to get every dollar for innovation? No, we want every dollar because we want every dollar. We're making money. We paid for all this stuff. Don't let this stuff go away. What they're doing is they're going and they're asking for net neutrality to stop innovation, to be able to put the gates up. Because you know who I'm afraid of? You know who I'm afraid of? And I've said this to my own staff and my own company and all of the vice presidents will be hearing this from me over the next year. I don't want to hear -- I'm 50. I don't want to hear any of your 50-year-old ideas. I don't want to hear them. Can we get some 18-year-olds in here? I want to talk to some 20-year-olds. Really responsible 20-year-olds. Now, I want to hear the 50-year-old ideas. I want to hear your ideas on how to clear the bull crap out of their life. Clear the runway for them. Make sure legally everything is buttoned up. Make sure that we're holding everything together and we're treating people right and we're running a good, decent company with good moral sense. But I want you to clear the runway for the 20-year-olds because the 20-year-olds think differently. They don't even think like we do anymore. They see the future in a completely different way. Go ahead. You know what it is? It's like talking to you and me about race and then going and having a conversation with Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews. It's not -- nothing against them. They just are 20 years older than we are. They see the world differently. When I say, I don't see race, they can't even imagine that. They don't --

STU: It's all the same.

GLENN: That's all they see. And it's because they grew up in that 1960s world and they stopped thinking. They -- they cast what the world is, and that's just what it is. You have to stop doing that. That's when you get old and die, is when you just cast the world and say, this is what it is. The world is going to change. And that's why the 20-somethings, they see things completely differently. You talk to them about race, they really think it's crazy. Talk about politics to 20-somethings? What? Why? Why would I do that? Why? That doesn't even make any sense. They don't have any restrictions, just like the Internet. It has no limitations. It used to be, you know, I just got this -- this is D-magazine. They brought this in and this is an article on me, the new Glenn Beck. And I -- I opened it up and I put it down and I looked at Pat and I said, you know what, Pat? Do you remember when being in a magazine used to mean something? It used to mean something. Why? Now that same article is online, but it doesn't mean as much. Why? Two reasons. One, it's not tangible. Okay. It's not something you pick up. You have to go find on a store shelf someplace. So it's someplace third party. Look at that. It's right there and it's at the checkout stand and it's a big deal. And it's tangible. And there are what, 300 pages in this magazine. Limited space. Do you know why articles and shows and everything else don't matter? Because it's unlimited. I can watch every episode of the "Twilight Zone," followed by every episode of "Seinfeld," followed by every episode of "Continuum," and then I can watch the old Sherlock Holmes, the brand-new BBC Sherlock Holmes, and I can do it all in a day and I haven't spent any money. All do I, I'm going to download it. It's unlimited. So that devalues everything. And that's what got everybody freaked out. They want control and they want their money. Don't listen to anyone who says net neutrality is a good thing. I have everything to gain by standing with the people who want net neutrality. I'm telling you, it's bad for you.

PAT: And the one question I would ask these people and the president among the rest is why? Why are you doing this? Because he keeps saying, he wants it free and accessible. It already is. It can't get any more free and it can't get any more accessible than it is -- it's like saying that I want chocolate to remain delicious and accessible. It already is. Why are you going to change it? It's like saying, I want the interstate freeway system to remain accessible to all. Well, it's already -- who's telling me what lanes I can get on? Who's telling me unless there's an HOV lane. Unless --

GLENN: Unless the government says --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I want --

(overlapping speakers).

PAT: A problem now so don't create one. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to create a problem.

GLENN: And -- I want to take this one a step further. The buffering ad that they ran where they put the phony buffering in.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That goes right back to the other guy who's talking about health care. The people are stupid.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're lying to you again and listen to what they were saying about how stupid you were on health care. Don't be stupid again. Don't do it.

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn's Show Prep

Glenn: Net neutrality is "the global warming of the Internet"

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

A revolutionary wedge

Negotiating with radicals

What we really celebrated