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

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

November 12, 2014
Wilson

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.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?  

Should Starbase become its own city?  

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Top FIVE takeaways from Glenn's EXCLUSIVE interview with Trump

Image courtesy of the White House

As President Trump approaches his 100th day in office, Glenn Beck joined him to evaluate his administration’s progress with a gripping new interview. April 30th is President Trump's 100th day in office, and what an eventful few months it has been. To commemorate this milestone, Glenn Beck was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Their conversation covered critical topics, including the border crisis, DOGE updates, the revival of the U.S. energy sector, AI advancements, and more. Trump remains energized, acutely aware of the nation’s challenges, and determined to address them.

Here are the top five takeaways from Glenn Beck’s one-on-one with President Trump:

Border Security and Cartels

DAVID SWANSON / Contributor | Getty Images

Early in the interview, Glenn asked if Trump views Mexico as a failed narco-state. While Trump avoided the term, he acknowledged that cartels effectively control Mexico. He noted that while not all Mexican officials are corrupt, those who are honest fear severe repercussions for opposing the cartels.

Trump was unsurprised when Glenn cited evidence that cartels are using Pentagon-supplied weapons intended for the Mexican military. He is also aware of the fentanyl influx from China through Mexico and is committed to stopping the torrent of the dangerous narcotic. Trump revealed that he has offered military aid to Mexico to combat the cartels, but these offers have been repeatedly declined. While significant progress has been made in securing the border, Trump emphasized that more must be done.

American Energy Revival

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s tariffs are driving jobs back to America, with the AI sector showing immense growth potential. He explained that future AI systems require massive, costly complexes with significant electricity demands. China is outpacing the U.S. in building power plants to support AI development, threatening America’s technological leadership.

To counter this, Trump is cutting bureaucratic red tape, allowing AI companies to construct their own power plants, potentially including nuclear facilities, to meet the energy needs of AI server farms. Glenn was thrilled to learn these plants could also serve as utilities, supplying excess power to homes and businesses. Trump is determined to ensure America remains the global leader in AI and energy.

Liberation Day Shakeup

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Glenn drew a parallel between Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and the historical post-World War II Liberation Day. Trump confirmed the analogy, explaining that his policy aims to dismantle an outdated global economic order established to rebuild Europe and Asia after the wars of the 20th century. While beneficial decades ago, this system now disadvantages the U.S. through job outsourcing, unfair trade deals, and disproportionate NATO contributions.

Trump stressed that America’s economic survival is at stake. Without swift action, the U.S. risks collapse, potentially dragging the West down with it. He views his presidency as a critical opportunity to reverse this decline.

Trouble in Europe

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

When Glenn pressed Trump on his tariff strategy and negotiations with Europe, Trump delivered a powerful statement: “I don’t have to negotiate.” Despite America’s challenges, it remains the world’s leading economy with the wealthiest consumer base, making it an indispensable trading partner for Europe. Trump wants to make equitable deals and is willing to negotiate with European leaders out of respect and desire for shared prosperity, he knows that they are dependent on U.S. dollars to keep the lights on.

Trump makes an analogy, comparing America to a big store. If Europe wants to shop at the store, they are going to have to pay an honest price. Or go home empty-handed.

Need for Peace

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump emphasized the need to end America’s involvement in endless wars, which have cost countless lives and billions of dollars without a clear purpose. He highlighted the staggering losses in Ukraine, where thousands of soldiers die weekly. Trump is committed to ending the conflict but noted that Ukrainian President Zelenskyy has been a challenging partner, constantly demanding more U.S. support.

The ongoing wars in Europe and the Middle East are unsustainable, and America’s excessive involvement has prolonged these conflicts, leading to further casualties. Trump aims to extricate the U.S. from these entanglements.