Can love conquer all?

Last night on the Glenn Beck program, Stu Burguiere filled in for Glenn. Andrew W.K., our favorite rocker with a "philosophy of partying" joined Stu to weigh in on atheists and loving your neighbor. During their conversation, Stu brought up a video of a "prayer" that occured at a city council meeting that left many outraged. Stu took the opportunity to ask Andrew W.K. his thoughts on the video asking, if Andrew was in in the city council meeting would he have acted the same as the "prayer leader"?

In true Andrew W.K. fashion, he took the opportunity to respond to the question in a loving, enlightened and meaningful way:

Well, for me personally, I wouldn’t probably go to a meeting like that. I think there’s other ways to accomplish probably very similar ends that don’t involve as much fighting, I guess, or just battling. I think that certain people are drawn to that kind of environment, that kind of atmosphere where they like debate. You know, debate is a great thing. They teach it. People can become world-class debaters, and again, it stirs up emotions that are very satisfying.

It’s fun to feel like you beat someone in a debate. It’s fun to, you know, to lose sometimes and to sort of have that humiliation. It’s all, I guess, you know, sort of a game in itself there, but these are real things on the line, and I would imagine that, again, if you hold onto these beliefs very passionately and personally, no one can really strip you of what you think. You know what I mean? At least so far, technology has not allowed us to infiltrate someone’s brain completely, so hold onto that, you know, in the midst of all these battles.

As the conversation continued, it turned towards messages of love and hope; beliefs that have played a strong part in Glenn's life and his shows. After all, Glenn does have a song entitled "Love" as his radio theme song. In response to some critics, saying that Andrew W.K. now preaches "hippie-dippey nonsense," he took the opportunity to discuss the complexities, yet beauty of love. And in true Stu fashion, it somehow turned onto a conversation about cute pugs, but it is still worth a watch.

Stu: Joining me now to talk more about this is Andrew W.K. Andrew, first off, what is your opinion on drunken horse chasing? Is that part of the party hard philosophy?

Andrew: Well, drunken riding is never a good idea, even if you’re the horse. You know, it’s dangerous for everybody, so try to avoid drunken really anything with a vehicle, and a horse does count.

Stu: Okay, that’s good. We have that cleared up. And again, this is how we come together, and we can all live a happy life. I’m interested in your take on this, because, you know, there are a lot of different viewpoints out there, and I really do think that is what makes this country great. We’re allowed to express them without fear of, you know, any reprisal from the government, but it seems like people get so antagonistic against each other and just try to basically ruin everybody else’s fun. And you see the story, I think there’s a good part of that in the story from Florida where the atheist tried to basically needle all the people who have faith in the committee. How did you see that?

Andrew: Well, I think that largely what people want in these situations is attention. They want us to be doing what we are doing right now, which is talking about it, but hopefully even more than that that we’re thinking about it. And I think any situation that brings us into personal thought and reflection, ultimately that’s good, so if we give them credit for inspiring thought to see inside of ourselves what we think about these things, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Stu: See, you have too positive a viewpoint. I strive to get to the point where I could handle things the way you do, because, you know, I can’t help to get annoyed sometimes when people needle me or needle something that I care about, and I think that’s the average person. You know, at the end of the day, does it make a difference in your life what someone else thinks about your viewpoint? No, but it’s still something you feel like you need to defend your turf. Maybe you feel like they need to, you know, it’s like sports, you feel like your team is being violated, and you want to defend it. How do you get to that point where you can kind of just sit back and say…? Yeah, go ahead.

Andrew: I think sports are actually a very good comparison, because if we think of sports as a game, we engage in that because it’s fun. We are not defending truly our life in a game like a sport like football, for example. We’re allowed to explore those feelings in a playful way for the sake of competition, the excitement of standing with the team, but at the end of the day, we also do realize that it is kind of just for fun, even very passionate fun, very emotional fun, but for fun.

So when someone needles at me, if I’m not so sure of my point of view, it might threaten me a little bit more, but again, I just have to think about it, and ultimately, like you said, I don’t care that much about what someone else thinks, especially if that person was just trying to get under my skin, you know?

Stu: So put yourself in a position, you’re someone who, you know, you believe strongly in whatever, you know, atheism or whatever, and you’re sitting at a council meeting like that, and you don’t like the prayer thing. You think it’s silly. It’s not your belief structure, but you do recognize that there are good people who are with you who do. Do you take that opportunity to go in there and try to essentially insult them to win them over? Does that work? Or what do you do with that time?

Andrew: Well, for me personally, I wouldn’t probably go to a meeting like that. I think there’s other ways to accomplish probably very similar ends that don’t involve as much fighting, I guess, or just battling. I think that certain people are drawn to that kind of environment, that kind of atmosphere where they like debate. You know, debate is a great thing. They teach it. People can become world-class debaters, and again, it stirs up emotions that are very satisfying.

It’s fun to feel like you beat someone in a debate. It’s fun to, you know, to lose sometimes and to sort of have that humiliation. It’s all, I guess, you know, sort of a game in itself there, but these are real things on the line, and I would imagine that, again, if you hold onto these beliefs very passionately and personally, no one can really strip you of what you think. You know what I mean? At least so far, technology has not allowed us to infiltrate someone’s brain completely, so hold onto that, you know, in the midst of all these battles.

Stu: That would be pretty fun though, because you could get people to do like anything you want. It would be awesome.

Andrew: I’m sure they’re working on it. Yeah, they’re getting along with that technology, but so far, so good, we can still think what we want to think ourselves.

Stu: It’s right around the corner. You had someone kind of take you to task or attempt to take you to task in one of your recent columns where they said basically like Andrew, I love you, I love your music, you’re great, but you’re constantly preaching this hippie-dippy nonsense, and everyone needs to find love and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it was interesting to read that, because I could produce 12 letters a day that we get from our listeners that say the same thing—Glenn’s constantly talking about, you know, trying to work together and understand other people, and it’s a different vibe for maybe talk radio or politics.

Andrew: Yes.

Stu: And so it’s tough. I struggle with it, to be honest. You know, I struggle with it. You sit there, and a lot of times I think, you know, love…and you made this point in the column, love can conquer all. Why can’t it? You know, stop doubting it. But there’s a human feeling that it just feels like it’s sort of this, I don’t know, Enya sort of thing that’s just sort of like flowing up there. It’s all feel good and everything, but it doesn’t actually get results. If you don’t go out there and fight for your positions or fight for what you believe in, then you wind up just getting rolled over.

Andrew: The elusive qualities of that approach, loving everybody, it seems…it’s like this, it’s too good to be true combined with too easy combined with unrealistic combined with all these efforts that we make. We’re so used to striving, like it’s an outward push, this, you know, forcing ourselves, forcing our will.

We can judge success more clearly in this material world where we see results that we made happen, and this love approach which is, you know, even the word love, it rubs people the wrong way, which is so strange, but this approach is all the opposite. It’s all about not doing as much, about going inward instead of outward, about getting results in a less tangible way, and for that reason, it is challenging. It isn’t easy, but at the same time it’s like the easiest thing of all.

You know, to love a baby, for example, that’s not…takes a lot of hard work that you have to put all that effort into loving that baby. You just look at its round face and its plushy eyes and its dewy complexion, and you just feel good. So why can’t we, you know, have that same kind of ease in all these other situations? I mean, not everything is as cute as a baby. That’s probably part of the reason.

Stu: That would be a solution. You know, Glenn once said a long time ago, because I have two pugs, and I was arguing that my dog was cute, and he said it was actually incredibly ugly. You look at a pug, you know, it’s got a smashed face. It’s got the giant bulging eyeballs, but it’s still cute, and his point was anything that’s small is cute, and maybe that’s the problem, we’re just too large. If we just were all cute little babies, we’d all be able to love each other a lot more easily. I don’t know if that’s going to be solved anytime soon, but…

Andrew: Well, yeah, that’s a good point. I mean, like is a mountain, a mountain, you wouldn’t call a cute mountain or a cute galaxy.

Stu: It’s grand. It’s beautiful. It’s just you have this little adorable thing that’s just there, and when you see something small and adorable, you can’t help but love it. It’s when they get big, and then they’re ugly dogs.

Andrew: You know, our ability to be bigger than other things is where we can, you know, exhibit mercy and acts of, you know, benevolent kindness because we do have a larger presence to that thing. I mean, we’re bigger than an ant, and we can choose not to step on an ant, for example. And the mountain is bigger than us, you know, or God could be bigger than us and thinks of us like the way we think of a baby. So can we look at least at each other as brothers? I mean, my brother is pretty cute, and he is younger than me, but he’s actually an inch taller than me, and I still feel that kind of affection for him.

Stu: Wow, you actually brought that back to something rational. That was pretty impressive. I have to give you some credit on that.

Andrew: I did lose it for a second there.

Stu: Let me give you this, is it part of the equation here to try to love someone and solve problems that way? Is part of it just being comfortable in your own skin, being comfortable that you can’t convince everyone to agree with you, being comfortable that other people are going to think you’re an idiot sometimes? If you can get to that place, all of this becomes a lot easier.

Andrew: I completely agree. I think maybe that’s the best way to put it actually is that it’s a mindset. You actually can’t ask that much of it to work all the time. It’s sort of like an ideal, and why not have the highest ideal we could possibly conceive of at the forefront of all our behavior in our mind, even if we don’t always get there, even if we never get there? You don’t settle for less. We push for more, you know?

Stu: Yeah, that’s a great point. Andrew W.K., thanks so much for coming on, and we’ll talk. Maybe next time you come on, we can just expand the conversation on the drunken horse riding. I think that was really important.

Andrew: Okay, I like that. That sounds good.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

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.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.