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

Are we living in a post-Christian world?

June 29, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Immediately after the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, supporters took to social media to not only celebrate their victory, but to also trash anyone who believes in traditional marriage. It seems that if #LoveWins, then anyone who doesn’t support same-sex marriage implicitly loses - especially Christians. Time Magazine even printed an article about America transforming into a post-Christian nation. The fight over gay marriage was never about who you sleep with and everything to do with the right of conscience.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

GLENN: I don't know about you, but I spent some time this weekend with my family. And spent some time myself in quiet reflection trying to figure out truth and tolerance. What is -- where do we go from here? TIME Magazine said this weekend that we now live in a post Christian America. They went so far as to say, Christians now find themselves as exiles in their own land.

Those are some pretty intense statements. This has nothing to do with who you sleep with. Because I don't care who you sleep with. Do you care who I sleep with, honestly? Do you want to know about my sexual habits? Because I barely want to know about my sexual habits.

This has nothing to do with who you sleep with. This has everything to do with the right of conscience.

One ruling puts us into a post Christian world? Yes. Because the president has signed some executive -- some executive orders that now put us into a situation to where, if you receive any federal money, any federal grant, you happen to be Liberty University, you're going to lose that money, unless you now accept and you preach what the Supreme Court preaches. Right of conscience. Truth and tolerance.

I think that we have to -- we have to regather now, and we have to -- the world has changed. I told you at one point, you won't recognize your own country. We are here. You are now on the outside looking in. And, again, it has nothing to do with who you sleep with.

It has everything to do with your right to say what you believe. See, we're picking and choosing now. They're talking about banning the statue and taking down the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest. I completely agree with that. That guy was -- he was a great general, but he also was the founder of the KKK. Should we have that? No. But if you're going to take that down, we also should not have any statue -- or, we certainly shouldn't have a school of foreign policy named after Woodrow Wilson.

See, we're getting into a real problem here because somebody has got to tell us exactly what's right and what's wrong. Well, who is that someone?

We used to believe in absolute truth. I still do. I want to say that again. I believe in absolute truth. I believe there is the existence of absolute truth and right and wrong as established by God's commandments. Now, that may make me an exile in my own land, so be it, that's okay.

I believe in all truth. No sect, no denomination, no single principle of truth is out there that I don't accept or will reject. I accept the existence of truth, and I'm willing to receive all truth from whatever source that truth may come from. Because the truth will stand and will endure.

We don't even recognize truth anymore. We ask, well, whose truth? What is truth? Truth is the acknowledgment of things as they are, as they were, and as they will be in the future. Truth doesn't change.

Truth exists and so does evil. There are some things that are simply, seriously an everlasting evil, period. Things that I can tell you that you know are wrong. Mixing sex with death. You know that's wrong. It just feels wrong. It's evil.

People are now telling us that there is no absolute right and wrong. And that all authority and all rules of behavior are all man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. That everything is a man-made choice. And that's why we can't decide which cakes we can make and which cakes we can't make. That's why we're down to micromanaging cakes!

People are questioning whether there is a God. Faith is on the retreat. The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that every person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong. I believe that you have the choice between right and wrong, and you are the only one that can make it.

But that you can make up your own right and wrong, I disagree with. It's absurd. It's why we are caught up in -- in our self-serving pleasures, in the things that we just want to do. If it feels good, I'm going to do it. It's why you could walk down the street with your children and nobody watches their language anymore. You can be anywhere, and nobody -- you want to say to them, hey, can you stop for a second? Don't you see I have my child here? And what do they say, you don't like it, go someplace else. Because they will not recognize the difference between right and wrong.

There was a study done in about 1995 that showed -- or, sorry -- 79 percent of Americans believed that there were, quote, clear guidelines about what was good and what was evil that applied to everyone, regardless of the situation. This is 1995. Think about what was happening in America. We thought the world was coming to an end then. 1995. 79 percent said that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of the situation.

There's a new college -- new poll out of college seniors. 75 percent of them now believe the difference between right and wrong is relative and up to the individual. That's 20 years. It's why we are lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.

Gang, the world has changed. We are now at the beginning of the place that I said that we would eventually find ourselves. Greece is on fire today. The banks are closed for up to ten days. Nobody knows what's going to happen.

#LoveWins was the big hashtag. But did you read anything online? Love lost. Why?

Because winning -- winning was the goal, not reconciliation. Winning. Which implies there's a winner. And everybody who won wanted to rub the nose of anybody who lost. Anybody who lost was seeking vengeance and revenge. Love didn't win. A political action committee won.

We have a duty to stand at this time. Do you know what tolerance is defined as? Tolerance is defined as a friendly and fair attitude toward unfamiliar opinions and practices or towards persons who hold or practice those things.

What is that 1955 when we were all reading National Geographic? When that was the only way we could see things that were unfamiliar -- what is unfamiliar to us now? We live in a global community. We are so diverse now in our thinking. We can see and talk to people on the other side of the planet.

We are diverse. And it has enriched our lives, but it has also complicated them.

When does tolerance apply? This is really a hard question for those people who say there is a God and there is absolute truth. It's a really tough question for those people. Because the weaker your belief in God, the fewer things that you believe are absolutes. The fewer occasions when something happens to you that you're like, hey, hey, hey, hey.

An atheist doesn't need to decide what kind and occasions profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. An atheist never has to stand up and say, hey, that's kind of blasphemous. Persons who don't believe in God or absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant people alive. But those of us who say there is a right and wrong, there is a moral standard, well, wait a minute. Hang on just a second. I got to stand up. I know I'm not as tolerant as you because you have no standards. I do. That doesn't make me right and you wrong, it just says, these are the things that I believe in. And I have to stand. I'm compelled to stand.

But we have to -- there are few things that are absolutely true, that God teaches us, that are true. And the first thing he teaches us is that we are all brothers and sisters. We're all taught this in our various religions, and we're all taught that we have to serve one another.

We might disagree or have different interpretations of Him. But we are all sons of God. Therefore we have to work harder to build mutual respect. We have to respect one another. We have to do what Paul taught us. Follow after those things that make for peace. We don't bash each other.

I had a discussion before we went on the air. I don't know how to do my job anymore. None of us do. There are things that we cannot say anymore if we want to work tomorrow. There are also this lie, I think, that talk radio is built on confrontation. I'm -- I don't want confrontation. I don't want any more confrontation. I'm tired of confrontation. I'm tired of the hatred between each other. That's not who we are. That's not who I want to be. That's not who I've ever tried to be. None of us have. But that's the role that we're put into. That's what the world makes us, and we help it along. I'm tired of it.

We have to respect one another. But more importantly, we have to respect ourselves. We cannot abandon the truth. There is no middle ground on truth. We have to stand up for the truth, even while we practice tolerance and respect for beliefs and ideas that are different than ours and for the people that hold those ideas. We must practice tolerance and respect for others and their beliefs, including their constitutional right to state them openly.

But first and foremost, we're losing our kids, man. We're losing our kids because we don't practice what we preach. First, the one thing we should not tolerate is a deviance from truth in our own lives. We must be ruled by the demands of truth. We must be strong in keeping the commandments ourselves.

Forget about everybody else. How are you today? How am I today? What other people is not nearly as important in the grand scheme of things for our family as what we're doing today. What our children are witnessing us do today. We must be the ones that stand for the right, even if we stand alone.

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.