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

Who Invented the Internet? (It Wasn't Al Gore)

September 15, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The internet is a product of American ingenuity. Although Al Gore infamously said he "took the initiative in creating the Internet," its creation actually predated him by decades. Vannevar Bush invented the first modern analogue computer in 1930 --- and the concept behind what would become known as the internet.

"The concept was something called memex, which I like better than the internet myself. Memex. Yeah, better name," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Memex was a way to store all of the world's information, like a giant brain or memory bank.

WATCH: Freedom Fighter Ted Cruz Leads Charge to Keep the Internet Away From Liberal Censors

"At first, the idea was to tie it all together on microfilm. Most people refer to the article that he wrote in the Atlantic in 1945 called "As We May Think". This was the first public unveiling of a broader collective memory machine. Because, really, it's not a machine, but that is what the internet is. It's just collective memories. And you have access to that brain of memories and ideas," Glenn said.

Xerox, credited for inventing the Ethernet, also played a key role.

"Xerox, with Robert Taylor, who was influential in the creation of the internet, both at DARPA and then as an employee of Xerox, maintains that The origins of the internet include both work sponsored by the government and Xerox PARC. So you can't say that the internet was developed by Xerox or the government. It was both. But if anyone should get the credit for the creation of the internet, it's the guy named Vannevar . . . and a guy named Robert Taylor," Glenn said.

Should Al Gore want to take credit for creating the internet, it doesn't quite reconcile with his green energy and global warming positions. According to the New York Times, worldwide server farms for the internet use 30 billion watts of electricity. Data centers on average use only six to 12 percent of the electricity powering their servers to perform any kind of computations. The rest of the electricity is used just in case there's a surge of activity.

"In other words, about 90 percent of it, 88 percent of it is completely wasted energy. So, Al, I want everyone to know that Al Gore wants to take credit for the creation of something that wastes 90 percent of 30 billion watts of electricity. It sounds pretty green," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: So let me tell you a little bit about the truth about the internet because Pat just played the truth.

PAT: The truth.

GLENN: The truth. Here, it is, the inventor of the internet.

AL: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.

GLENN: He created the internet. How can he say that?

PAT: How do you say that?

GLENN: I'll show you how he says that.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Let me go back to the very beginning, to the very beginning. The internet starts with a concept in 1930. And the concept was something which was called memex, which I like better than the internet myself. Memex. Yeah, better name.

Memex was a concept developed by a guy named Vannevar. Now, that's his first name. I'll give you his last name in a minute.

But Vannevar --

PAT: Well, his last name is Internet.

GLENN: No.

PAT: Vannevar Internet. No?

GLENN: No. Vannevar invented the first modern analogue computer in 1930.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: And his idea of memex was a way to store all of the world's information using computers tied together.

At first, the idea was to tie it all together on microfilm. And most people refer to the article that he wrote in the Atlantic -- in 1945, it was called As We May Think. And this was the first public unveiling of a broader collective memory machine. Because, really, it's not a machine, but that is what the internet is. It's just -- it's collective memories. And you have access to that brain of memories and ideas.

Now, at the time when he wrote this in 1945, he was working as the chairman of the national defense research committee. So he was working for the government at the time he wrote that. But not at the time he had this original idea.

Yes, Pat.

PAT: Well, isn't that why DARPA hired him in the first place? They were impressed with his work.

GLENN: Do you know, Stu?

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's a part of the reason why --

PAT: Yeah, I think that's why they were attracted to him in the first place.

STU: I mean, think about it. That's the exact reverse of what you're told though. This is a man who came up, as a private citizen, with an amazing idea, and the government hired him because of that idea.

GLENN: Right.

STU: It's not the government creating it.

GLENN: And this is the government seeing what -- what the Nazis and the Japanese had done with the enigma machine. How did we -- the enigma machine changed everything. We've got to have computers because digitization is going to change everything. It's change the game. And so the Defense Department knew in 1945, "Holy cow, we are way behind." Especially the Germans, "We are way behind. We better come up with something." And so they start looking, and they find this guy named Vannevar. And they hire him after he writes As We May Think.

Now, he had been writing about the memex concept since the early 1930s. And he didn't start working for the government until 1938.

So he didn't invent the government -- he didn't invent the internet for the government. His invention, the internet, was one of the reasons why he was hired by the government.

So it isn't to say that the government -- more specifically, the military wasn't highly involved in the development of the internet from concept to reality, but I think it's really important to not give the government the credit, but the military credit. If there's one thing this government does effectively, it is the military.

STU: And this is the only time in history that the left gives the military credit for anything.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: All of a sudden, they're, we love the -- they're the government. See what we're saying. The government is inventing things.

All of a sudden they love the work the military has done.

GLENN: Yeah, except they'll never say that. They just call the military the government.

STU: The government.

GLENN: So by the time Al Gore was 21 -- 21 -- the backbone of the internet, Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, ARPANET, had already been commissioned. So here's the backbone, ARPANET: Al Gore is 21.

And what did he just say?

AL: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Wow. Wow. So when he was in Congress --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: But ARPANET was already being built when he was 21. And they laid the groundwork starting as a network to connect research computers one to another.

Now, in 1982, ARPANET linked together a grand total of 88 computers.

PAT: Which at that time was probably pretty good.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh, that was huge. That was huge.

PAT: That was amazing.

GLENN: Eighty-two computers. Now, what the government did for the internet was foundational, but rather worthless to your everyday life. The unique thing the government brings to the table for projects like this is unlimited access to your money.

Now, they took this idea. They gobbled it up with unlimited access to your money. This is what they came up with, linking them to 88 computers.

Can you imagine if -- if the people at the very beginning, the private sector, had unlimited access. If Vannevar would have had unlimited access to your money, do you think maybe there may have been more than 88 computers put together, especially if there was the profit incentive at the other end? Wait a minute. I have to eventually get this to pay for itself. How does this work? How can this benefit a lot of people?

Al Gore couldn't even fathom the internet being created without the government funds -- your money -- as he detailed in his 1991 article for Scientific America: Infrastructure For the Global Village. A high-capacity network will not be built without government investment. Congress must formulate the policies that are crucial to realizing the potential of the Information Age. Just as the Interstate Highway System was built with federal funds, so too will high-speed networks require federal seed capital.

So here's what Al Gore did, and you're going to love this. Al Gore was very successful at using your money. He sponsored the High-Performance Computing and Communications Act of 1991.

This is what it did: He took $600 million and poured it into high-performance computing. And with that $600 million, here's what he made.

Have you ever -- have you ever heard of the web browser Mosaic?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Yeah. That's what the government did. That's what Al Gore gave you. Al Gore gave you a really crappy web browser that nobody uses. That's what he did.

Yes, the government advanced the internet, but what turned the internet from a boring network of 88 computers to the things you post a picture of, you know, of your oatmeal in the morning or, you know, Anthony Weiner's wiener, was the private sector. And more specifically, it was Xerox.

Xerox is credited for inventing the Ethernet, the graphical user interface. You know, I have on the set of The Vault, which premieres next week, is an Apple IIc. Have you guys turned that on? Have you guys seen that? Have you been in The Vault?

PAT: I've seen that, but I haven't turned it on.

GLENN: Oh, my --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: This is what I used to write scripts with. I mean, when it came out in, what, 1982, '83. And so I turned it on. And I'm like, "Oh, my gosh. I haven't sat behind this computer since the 1980s."

And it does nothing.

(chuckling)

GLENN: It does nothing. My son looked at it. He's like, "Dad, this is great." And I said, "You want to play a game on it?" And he said, "Yeah." And I said, "You can't."

(laughter)

So Xerox -- Xerox, with Robert Taylor, who was influential in the creation of the internet, both at DARPA and then as an employee of Xerox, maintains that, quote, the origins of the Internet include both work sponsored by the government and Xerox PARC. So you can't say that the internet was developed by Xerox or the government. It was both.

But if anyone should get the credit for the creation of the internet, it's the guy named Vannevar. Not last name. First name, Vannevar. And a guy named Robert Taylor.

So I just want to -- I want to wrap it up with a couple things. First of all, Al Gore, he wants credit for inventing the internet. We know that's not true. But he also wants to be known as the guy who conserves energy and is a guy who is saying we can't use all this energy. We have to be green.

Let me just give you this: According to the New York Times, that bastion of conservatism, they found that server farms for the internet, server farms worldwide use 30 billion watts of electricity. But, wait, Al, it gets better.

Data centers on average use only six to 12 percent of the electricity powering their servers to perform any kind of computations. The rest of the electricity is used just in case there's a surge of activity.

So, in other words, about 90 percent of it, 88 percent of it is completely wasted energy.

So, Al, I want everyone to know that Al Gore wants to take credit for the creation of something that wastes 90 percent of 30 billion watts of electricity. It sounds pretty green.

Oh, and one more thing: Just -- there's no relation, but just to make everybody feel better, if you have my point of view and everybody who really loves Al Gore, it will make them feel really, really bad, and I don't want to be one that rubs salt in the wound at all, but Al Gore didn't invent it: Vannevar did.

And his last name is not Gore. His last name happens to be Bush. Just thought I'd leave you at that.

Featured Image: Vannevar Bush seated at a desk. This portrait is credited to "OEM Defense", the Office for Emergency Management (part of the United States Federal Government) during World War II; it was probably taken some time between 1940 and 1944.

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.