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

Obama Demands Black Voters Cement His Fantastic Legacy by Voting

September 19, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Since Obama delivered so much to the black community during his eight years as president --- you know, things like racial harmony, soaring employment and superior standards of living --- it's only fitting he's owed. Big time. And it's time to pay the piper.

"I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good sendoff, go vote," Obama said recently to a predominately black audience of Capitol Hill lawmakers and guests.

If anyone should be insulted it's black voters.

RELATED: Tavis Smiley: I Am Tired Of Black Voters Being Taken For Granted By One Party

"I'd consider it a personal insult --- politics is personal. This is the problem with our country. Everything is personal. No. That has nothing to do with you. I don't know if you know this, Barack, but you're not running. And even if you were running, just because I don't vote for you doesn't mean it's a personal insult," Glenn said.

If Obama had actually done anything other than hurt the black community, there would be no plea to make. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. President.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Now, let's have this conversation: Low black voter turnout would be a personal insult.

This is Barack Obama: I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy if this community lets down its guard and fails to activity itself this election. You want me to give -- you want to give me a good sendoff, go vote.

Wow. Let's -- let's talk about this here for a second.

JEFFY: Just calling out the action to vote, right?

GLENN: Yeah, uh-huh. So let's talk about this.

First of all, you want to give me a good sendoff -- why should people in the black community give him a good sendoff?

PAT: He's done nothing for them.

GLENN: I mean, I think the exact opposite.

PAT: Yeah, he's hurt --

STU: Well, he did heal all the racial wounds. That pretty much seems to be over, right? You know, I think we're all set.

GLENN: Why should anyone give him a good sendoff?

PAT: He seriously set back race relations in this country 40 years, easily. Fifty years.

GLENN: Easily. Easily.

PAT: We're back in the early '60s now, I think race-wise.

GLENN: And beyond that, just look at unemployment.

PAT: Unemployment is terrible.

GLENN: Unemployment numbers are, with the youth, in 50, 60 percent.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you look at the standard of living, it's gone down. If you look at the number of poor, it's gone up.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: What has he done? What has he done? Now, that's the first thing.

The second: I'd consider it a personal insult -- politics is personal. This is the problem with our country. Everything is personal. No. That has nothing to do with you. I don't know if you know this, Barack, but you're not running.

And even if you were running, just because I don't vote for you doesn't mean it's a personal insult.

PAT: And the third thing in that, he's expecting all blacks to vote en masse --

GLENN: In a bloc --

PAT: In a bloc, for a certain party.

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Now, why would they?

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Why would they?

GLENN: Why -- I want you to -- if anybody can defend this, I'd love to hear from you.

How can you possibly defend saying to a group of people, "You owe it to us. You have to vote, or it will be a personal insult to me. It will be bad." How could you possibly not vote for this candidate? Even the guy who has done it has done nothing for them. Even though the guy who is going to replace him, they don't necessarily like. They're not voting for her --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- they're not going out and voting because they don't believe in her.

STU: But do it anyway because it will be a personal insult to me if you don't.

GLENN: Right. And wrong. In fact, he goes on to say: Good sendoff, you got to vote for me -- I think he -- no, I guess that's it. It was somebody else that said something.

Others are taking it a step further and saying, "You know, this is -- this is detrimental to the country if you just don't follow in the bloc?"

STU: I mean, I would be insulted as a voter if they even asked that of me. If you -- you're asking me to vote for a candidate because you will be -- you will be insulted if I don't? You will be -- you think your legacy will be hurt if I don't do that? I mean, that's offensive to even ask. Right?

That's not how you're supposed to vote.

GLENN: Check your brain at the door.

PAT: Especially when his record is so terrible with the black community. They've gone backward, not just the race relations in this country have gone backwards, but so has -- so has the black community because economically they're worse off. Job-wise, they're worse off. The families are worse off. The murder rate, worse off. All of it, it's worse.

GLENN: Again, tell me -- tell me what she has done. What she had done. Not him. I can tell you what he's done.

PAT: For the black community?

GLENN: Tell me what she's done. Because it's about her.

PAT: I can't think of what she's done for anybody.

GLENN: Right. I could look at the party and say, "What has the party done for the black community ever? What has the party done to actually help the black community?"

It wasn't civil rights because that was -- those were the Republicans.

PAT: That was by the Republicans.

GLENN: So even with their own argument, the Republicans became bad after the civil rights movement. So it wasn't civil rights. So what has the Democratic Party done for the black man? What has it done? What has Barack Obama and what has Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton done for the black family?

STU: Well, if they had done something, his argument wouldn't be, you're going to hurt my feelings if you don't vote for Hillary.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It would be, "Hey, look at all these incredible accomplishments. You should vote for those." Instead, it's, "Well, look -- I mean, he is saying those things as well. But you wouldn't need this personal plea if the argument were obvious. If it was, wow, we've changed the lives of African-Americans and made things so much better. That would be an easy argument to sell to people.

PAT: Yeah, it would.

STU: You wouldn't need to say, you'll hurt my feelings if you don't cast this vote.

PAT: If they had actually helped.

STU: Right. That's an easier path. Right?

PAT: Yeah.

STU: I mean, maybe that's not easier. That's probably harder, but it's a more direct path.

GLENN: So if the Democratic Party had done some things and they -- and they need to go and said, "Hey, we've done some things for you." And even though you really don't like Hillary Clinton because of her husband's record and everything else, you really don't like her, you wouldn't be offend if they said, "It's not going to hurt my personal feelings, but you need to vote for her because of the Democrats."

STU: Because the Democrats?

GLENN: Right. They're Democrats, and these guys are Republicans, and these guys are evil.

STU: It seems like a terrible way to vote, right? I mean, you don't do that. You vote -- oh, no, I was about to say something really bad. I was about to say, "You vote your conscience."

PAT: Oh, my.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I'm sorry to offend the audience. I didn't mean to go there.

PAT: You hatemonger.

STU: But I will say this, if African-American voters don't vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's a person that they don't like or agree with on things: Well, they own it. I will say that, they own it. Let's say it again: They own it, like it's a really important intellectual point. They own it.

PAT: Stu, will you hold them personally --

STU: I will hold them personally responsible. They own it. Wait. Let me say it 13 more times.

PAT: Now, if you tell me you're a mauve belt or something --

STU: No, I would never go that far.

PAT: -- even after that because then I will really be scared, and so will they.

GLENN: All right. All right.

STU: It's an interesting point though. Is it not the exact same argument? How can you criticize Obama and what he's saying today if you're doing the exact same thing to other voters?

PAT: I don't know. I don't know what you're saying. All I'm saying --

STU: I will be personally -- I will feel --

GLENN: All right. We got it. I got it.

STU: I will hold you personally -- "personally" is the word in both cases. This is getting even more and more interesting.

PAT: It is. It is.

STU: Well, I will say that they own it. Hey, guys, they own it.

GLENN: Okay. We got it. We got it.

STU: Hold on. Let me say it again. They own it. They own it. They own it.

GLENN: Got it. Thank you. Thank you.

Featured Image: U.S. President Barack Obama holds a press conference about the recent bombings in the New York region at the Lotte New York Palace Hotel on September 19, 2016 in New York City. On the evening of September 17, 2016, a bomb placed in a dumpster exploded in lower Manhattan injuring at least 29 people. (Photo by Anthony Behar-Pool/Getty Images)

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.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

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.