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

What an Indian Chief Taught Ben Franklin From a Single Wooden Arrow

September 28, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

If you try to break a single pencil, you probably can. Group a bundle together and the task compounds exponentially. This simple lesson, taught to Benjamin Franklin by an American Indian chief, revealed how the Founders could defeat the most powerful nation on earth.

"He took an arrow, and he handed it to Ben Franklin," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

RELATED: #NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverMind: A Convention of States Is the Answer

Unknowingly, the chief demonstrated an ancient Roman concept.

"Imagine just rods and you have two bands . . . a band at the top and a band at the bottom. Have you ever seen that symbol before?" Glenn asked. "It's the fasces symbol. It's where we get fascism. You gather enough people together, you can't break them."

Fascism requires everyone to be the same. The motto of the United States --- E pluribus unum --- is the exact opposite of fascism: one from many. Individualism and personal responsibility are defining principles of the American ideal.

"The idea of America is self-reliance and self-governance," Glenn said. "So my question to you is, Do you even know what that idea is anymore, and are you really willing to live that idea?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these singular questions:

• How is fascism related to the Tower of Babel?

• Do you prefer building with identical bricks or one-of-a-kind stones?

• Have we been talking about the Constitution and Founding Fathers too much?

• How is the Constitution like a security system?

• Are you willing to fight for the idea of America?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Benjamin Franklin was trying to figure out, how do we pull this off? How do we beat England, the most powerful nation on the earth?

Remember, this is a country that the -- the sun never set on. Its empire was so spread out, its empire was always in the daylight. How are we going to beat that? We are a bunch of farmers.

And an Indian chief was there with him, and he took an arrow. And he handed it to Ben Franklin. Let me hand this pencil to Stu. Break the pencil.

He said, "They're easy to break one by one, but if we gather them all together -- yeah, no, you shouldn't be able to do it. I don't have enough in there if you can -- yeah, you can't break them. Right? Yeah, can't break them.

STU: No. I wish I was -- I was hoping for like a really powerful moment to show my muscles off. But no, cannot do it.

GLENN: Yeah, right. So no, you can't break them, and this is just with 12 pencils. You can't break 12 pencils.

Okay. If you imagine as just rods and you have two bands at the top -- this group of pencils, and you have a band at the top and a band at the bottom -- have you ever seen that symbol before? What is it called? Fasces. Fasces symbol. It's where we get fascism. You gather enough people together, you can't break them.

So this was a Roman idea. But the Native American chief didn't know that. But here's -- here's the difference between fasces and e pluribus unum. E pluribus unum: From many, one.

Fascism requires you all to be the same. It goes back to the Tower of Babel. "Let us make bricks, and we'll build a tower to the sky."

What politician tells his people, "Hey, everybody, you're going to be so excited about my new plan: We're all going to make bricks?" You don't start that way.

You start with, "Let me tell you what we're going to do. We're going to build a tower that's going to reach the sky." Not, "Let's make bricks."

This -- he was not speaking of bricks. The Scripture talks about bricks and stones. Stones are individual. When you are forced to make bricks -- what happened with the pharaoh? He was taking people and all making them slaves. Making them all uniform, making them exactly the same. You made a brick in that mold, and that's who you were. Nothing else. We're not going to make anything out of stones anymore.

The Lord builds things out of stones. We are all unique. We are all different. And it may take some extra time. But when you cobble that together, there's nothing more beautiful than a stone fence. Much more beautiful than a brick fence. A brick house. A stone -- a natural field stone house is beautiful because it's a work of art. It took time to put it all together.

Fascists, they make everybody the same. The Indian chief knew is, you guys are rallying around a principle. And if you can get everybody around that principle -- and what is that principle? What is the idea of America?

Because right now, we're not fighting for the idea of America. I don't know anybody who is even talking about it. We're even talking about the Constitution. But the Constitution is not the idea of America. We've been too technical. We've gotten bogged down in the -- the Founders and the Constitution and everything else. And I know that sounds crazy, coming from me. Bogged down in the Constitution? Yes.

Because what is the Constitution? The Constitution is only a fence around the idea. How do we -- we have this idea. How do we build a government around that idea, that the only job of the government is to protect that idea.

We've been rallying for the Constitution. Why?

We should rally around the idea. Because that idea is pretty gone. It's pretty gone.

When you say people don't understand personal responsibility, what are you saying? The idea of America is over. Because without personal responsibility, there's no chance. Our faith has failed us.

Well, the idea of America is self-reliance and self-governance. And all of our Founders said, "Without a religious and/or moral people, this system won't work." They're saying the Constitution won't work.

Because the people no longer want the idea. They no longer want to be that person. So my question to you -- not to all of America -- to you, is: Do you even know what that idea is anymore, and are you really willing to live that idea?

There is such growing hate right now, and we're making everybody into bricks. I'm really disappointed in Ted Cruz.

Let me rephrase that. I'm disappointed in me. Why would I make this about him?

Now, part of it is, I want to believe that -- that George Washington can exist. I want to see it from somebody. I want to see somebody that is willing to stand and lose everything because it gives me hope. It gives me hope that I can do it.

Well, if he can do it, I can do it. Somebody who is just unwavering. But that's what I'm looking for.

And I'm not a politician. I don't say that in a pejorative way. Politicians go to compromise. You have to compromise. Our system was built on compromise. And so you get to a point to where you're like, "Okay. I got to compromise here or here. Where am I going to compromise?"

And if anybody is against that, what do you think the majority of Trump supporters are doing? They're compromising. They're saying, "I know I don't want this in Hillary Clinton. I know I have my values. I know he's not that. But I'm going to compromise."

And the only difference between us is the level of compromise that you're comfortable with. And we're not all bricks. We're stones. And we're meant to be stones. So you're not my enemy. He's not my enemy. I have no reason to be angry with you.

And to be honest, you don't have any reason to be angry with me. We're stones. We see things differently. And our levels of compromise are different. That's it. That's it.

We both love the country. I think there are Hillary Clinton -- lots and lots and lots, the vast majority of Hillary Clinton supporters love our country. I think Hillary Clinton does. She just has a different view of what our country is. And why is that?

Because while we argue the Constitution, we're arguing over the security system. Imagine if you spent generations arguing over the security system for a house and you paid no attention to what was in the house. You don't even know anymore why that security system was even put in, in the first place. Nobody's even talked about the treasure. The treasure is probably gone.

If the family hasn't looked and known what that security was on for, they might have sold it. They might have given it away. They might be using it as an ashtray or a footstool. You don't know. Because nobody has said, "What the hell are we even protecting?"

The treasure could be gone. And we're arguing over the security system, if that.

We're now arguing over which one should be in charge of selecting the security system, and neither one of them have even talked about the security system, let alone the treasure.

They're just saying, "I'm not moving from this address." They want you to move your house into another ZIP code. No, sir, we're not.

What difference does that make? Because it's not about the stuff, it's not about the location. This is another controversial thing to say. But all these -- all these lefties, they always say the same thing, "Donald Trump gets elected, George Bush gets elected, if John McCain gets elected, if Bob Dole gets elected, if Ronald Reagan gets elected, I'm -- go ahead and fill in the blank, everybody. I'm going to...

STU: Moving.

PAT: Leaving. Leaving the country. I'm going to Canada.

GLENN: I'm going to move to Canada. Okay. Okay. Go.

STU: None of those racists ever say they're moving to Mexico.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, right. I'm going to move to Canada. Okay. You're going to move to Canada. I'm not threatening I'm going to move to Canada if these guys are elected. First of all, Canada is not going to protect you from anything. Second of all, let me spin this around: I'm not going to move from here because of something -- hopefully. I'm going to move towards something.

If India all of a sudden had the idea, the original idea of America and said, "Look at our Constitution."

Now, I'd have to give it 25 years to see if it was stable, but if all of a sudden they had the idea of America, and we were like, "Holy cow, look at -- look at. They're kind to each other. They understand moral sentiments and the invisible hand of the market. They understand both parts of Adam Smith. They're good, they're charitable, they're standing on principle, and it's an entrepreneurial place, where you can go chart your own course. There is no caste system, no overseer that's going to keep you down."

If it was truly the spirit of the idea of America, I would move there in a heartbeat. Because I'm not betraying my country. My country is an idea. Everybody else's country is a space. My country is an idea.

Featured Image: This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923.

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.