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

Ted Cruz Has No Swag—And That's a Good Thing

February 05, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Following the Iowa Caucus, Matt Walsh, contributing editor at TheBlaze, wrote a spectacular piece titled, "Ted Cruz Has No Style And No Personality. That’s Why It’s A Good Sign He’s Winning."

Walsh made the case that voters responded to Cruz's constitutional principles and small government ideas rather than an over-the-top personality (which, according to Walsh, Cruz has in short supply).

"As for his personality, I admit it leaves plenty to be desired. It’s even kind of off-putting at times. He has no style," Walsh wrote. "He’s not much of a charmer. He tells bad jokes. He has a weird face. He’s not entertaining at all. He’s not the type of dude you’d necessarily want to get a beer with. I bet he’d order a Stella Artois and spend the whole time giving his list of the most outrageous 20th century Supreme Court decisions, which I actually think would be pretty interesting, but I’m guessing a lot of people would find it lame and head over to the other end of the bar where Chris Christie is shotgunning Miller Lite."

The article also outlined Walsh's view on Trump, the campaign's the larger-than-life personality and Cruz's main competition: "He is not a conservative, he has no principles, he has no integrity, he has no moral courage, and he lacks the judgment and wisdom to govern this country at such a volatile time, or at any time. But, up until now, he was a winner. He wins. He makes deals. He wins. He always wins. He never loses. He should win because he wins, we were told."

Glenn commented on Walsh's article this week on The Glenn Beck Program.

"He's really a great writer," Glenn said. "If you don't know Matt Walsh, he writes for TheBlaze. And he's just one of the best editorialists of the conservative movement, I think."

Walsh applauded Iowa caucus goers for voting on substance over style, calling it a healthy indicator.

"It would be a sign of national health if a wonkish nerd with no swag won the presidency."

Read Matt Walsh's full article at TheBlaze.

 

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

GLENN: All right. Hello, America. Coming up, we'll tell you a little about an article that Matt Walsh that I think is fantastic. It says basically that Ted Cruz has no personality. And that's a good thing. And it explains why he's winning and why he should win.

GLENN: So Matt Walsh wrote something, and he said, there's a few things that I just couldn't be happier about. He said, be nice to get a reprieve from a politician pretending to care about the state of Iowa. They can now move on to pretending they care about New Hampshire, then South Carolina, then Nevada for a few minutes.

As a Maryland resident, considering our primary isn't until late April, when the nomination is already decided, politicians never pretend to care about me. And I couldn't be happier about it.

Anyway, a few thoughts on the race. One, Ted Cruz won in an impressive fashion. Not only did he beat Donald Trump by four points, he outperformed the polls by five points and won more votes in an Iowa caucus than any G.O.P. candidate ever.

Everyone thought Trump was energized, but it turns out the folks in Iowa were much more excited about Ted Cruz. This is particularly impressive when you consider the fact that Cruz is running as a small government, issue-oriented conservative. For God's sake, he vigorously opposed ethanol subsidies in Iowa and still won. Not only that, he won Iowa's heaviest corn-producing counties. In an election cycle dominated by pandering, big government circus clowns, Cruz staying boring, stayed on message and managed the most massive Republican win in the history of the state.

What does that tell you?

Well, as pessimistic as I tend to be, it tells us there may be a reason for optimism. Whether you support Cruz or not, you should be encouraged that someone like Cruz can win so handily, even when the media does everything in its power to hand the election to the guy from The Apprentice.

Whatever else you might say about him, Cruz is radically conservative. He is, quote, so extreme. He's extreme, as Viagra pitchman Bob Dole puts it. And he runs on his own ideas and principles, not personality.

As for his personality, I admit, it leaves plenty to be desired. It's even kind of offputting at times. The man has no style. He's not much of a charmer. He tells bad jokes. He has a weird face. He's not entertaining at all. He's not the type of dude you want to go have a beer with. I'd bet he'd order a Stella Artois. I don't know. What is that? Is that a beer?

STU: Yeah, it's a beer.

GLENN: And spend the whole time giving his list of the most outrageous 20th-century Supreme Court decisions, which actually I think would be kind of interesting. But I'm guessing a lot of people would find it lame and head over to the other end of the bar, where Chris Christie is shotgunning Miller Lite.

The point is, people who support Ted Cruz support him because they like his ideas. They think he's competent. They trust him to stick to his principles once he's in office. You might think there's someone else in the race who better fits this bill: Rand Paul at least equals Cruz in this regard, but unfortunately he's not going to win. But you should still be happy that so many G.O.P. voters are voting based on the right things for the right reasons. It would be a sign of national health, if a wonkish nerd with no swag won the presidency.

It really would.

PAT: He's dead-on as always.

GLENN: He's really a great writer.

PAT: He really is. He is.

GLENN: If you don't know Matt Walsh, he writes for TheBlaze. And he's just one of the best editorialists of the conservative movement, I think.

Cruz is a long way from winning. But last night was a good start for anyone who values substance over style.

Second thing he's happy about: This should be the end of Trump's campaign. It won't be, sadly. But it should be because Trump's one single, solitary selling point was just destroyed. As we've covered ad nauseam, Trump is not a conservative. He has no principles. He has no integrity. He has no moral courage. He lacks the judgment and wisdom to govern this country at such a volatile time or any time. But up until now, hey, at least he was a winner. He wins. He makes deals. He wins. He always wins. He never loses. He should win because he wins, we were told.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: That's always bunk, considering the great winner bankrupted four businesses --

PAT: Right!

GLENN: -- destroyed two marriages, and failed spectacularly in many other ventures, sometimes so badly that he's being investigated for fraud. But that was all in the past. And now after a lifetime of failures, he's been reborn as a perpetual winner. And winners win, until they don't. Like this week.

JEFFY: That's right.

PAT: That's so good. That's so good.

JEFFY: And then he leads you to believe that he was planning on losing so it was still a win.

PAT: The Trump University lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General is for $40 million for fraud.

GLENN: Trump lost to Cruz and almost lost to Rubio, despite being a billionaire celebrity who had gotten more media coverage than every other candidate in the history of the party combined and despite ringing endorsements from supposed conservative stars like Sarah Palin and despite desperate shilling done on his behalf by the likes of conservative media powerhouses like Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Breitbart.com, and a variety of ridiculous personalities on Fox News.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: The media has spent this whole race talking about Trump's shocking political success. But, first of all, he hasn't had any actual success. Second, it's not shocking. He has all the attention, all the money, all the name recognition, and the enthusiastic or tactic endorsements of a bevy of conservative influencers.

Give an illiterate ex-con meth addict a few billion dollars and 8,000 hours of nonstop media coverage, and I bet he even leads the polls for a while. That's not winning. That's accepting a gift you've been handed. When it came time to actually win, he lost. Maybe he'll win in New Hampshire, next, but we've now all seen that the king bleeds. And that's a problem for a guy whose entire platform is, he never bleeds.

Fascinating. There's more to this article that you should read. It's up on TheBlaze.com. From Matt Walsh.

You deserve the truth, and it is just that simple. But some companies mislead you with come-ons, free stuff, and contracts. And lock you into a bad deal. Do you want to do business with a bad company that is not transparent? Or one that is fair, transparent, or honest?

STU: Bad company, I think.

GLENN: No, we're not voting for president.

STU: Okay. We'll do the good company then.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks at the Emmanuel Baptist Church on February 4, 2016 in Hooksett, New Hampshire. Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates are stumping for votes throughout New Hampshire leading up to the Presidential Primary on February 9th. (Photo by Matthew Cavanaugh/Getty Images)

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.