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

It's Morally Wrong to Trap People in Poverty With Welfare Programs

September 30, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The transition from using food stamps to cards that look like debit or credit cards has lessened the stigma of using government assistance. However, it's completely contrary to what Benjamin Franklin said about ending poverty:

I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

RELATED: War on Poverty--Abusing the System

"I don't and won't look down on somebody who is using a Lone Star card or welfare stamps . . . I won't do that. My father made that very clear to me when I was a kid: You don't look down at those people. You don't know their situation. But I do want them, when they pull it out, to go, I wish I didn't have to do this."

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

• What advice did Glenn's father give after his bakery went bankrupt?

• Why is feeling uncomfortable a good thing?

• Does the YMCA offer free cable?

• Did Vanderbilt do a disservice to his children by giving them money?

• Why hasn't $22 trillion ended the War on Poverty?

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

GLENN: I have to tell you, this bothers me so deeply, the -- what's the Texas card called?

PAT: Lone Star card.

GLENN: It really bothers me that we have made the Lone Star card just like a credit card. And there's no looking down at that. There's no shame when you pull that out. And I know this is hard and hash, but I'm quoting Benjamin Franklin: The best way to help people in or out of their poverty is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty. We make things so comfortable, that there's no reason to get out.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Opt out, why? It's more of a hassle.

PAT: Just by design, of course.

JEFFY: Well, yeah. I mean, they can control what you purchase, though. There are times when --

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: I've seen this happen where they have things on their conveyer belt that the card won't pay for.

GLENN: Correct. Correct. But I remember there was -- you know, with food stamps, there was some bit of shame in that.

JEFFY: Having to get it out and --

GLENN: Yes, and it was a little bit of shame. And, look, I know because I've lived it. I have lived having no money. I worked in my father's bakery. My father went bankrupt with his bakery. You know, we couldn't make ends meet. We had, you know, powdered milk. We never got to the food stamp place because my father and my grandfather were -- were both raised, "You don't do that. You don't do that. You do that if you cannot eat and cannot work."

STU: Always a last resort because you didn't want to deal with it.

GLENN: Right. But you go out and you work and you take any job at any level --

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: -- and you pay for what you can. And if it's only food, then you go -- this is my father, "You go live at the YMCA, and you work and you buy food and you dig yourself back out."

JEFFY: I mean, the YMCA has cable, right? Because I can't --

PAT: Right.

STU: And obviously saying -- advocating for shame is not --

GLENN: No, it's not -- I'm not. Because I know there's a lot of people -- for instance, there's a lot of people that, you know, their husband dumped them and they got kids at home --

STU: There's a real reason for that.

GLENN: There's a real reason for that. So I don't want to inflict pain on people. I really don't. I don't want people -- for instance, I don't and won't look down on somebody who is using a Lone Star card or welfare stamps when we had food stamps. I won't do that. My father made that very clear to me when I was a kid. "You don't look down at those people. You don't know their situation." But I do want them, when they pull it out, to go, "I wish I didn't have to do this."

STU: How do I end it?

GLENN: How do I end this?

STU: Because we, as a society chose -- because both of these things are true. We don't people to feel shame, so we've tried to make the policy as easy as possible.

PAT: We don't want them to feel any discomfort about anything. Safe spaces. Trigger warnings. Pathetic.

GLENN: Yeah, what we're saying now -- what I'm saying now has got to be viewed by some -- and I don't even know by how many now as outrageously horrendous.

STU: Right. And so the point here is we know there's a problem here. We don't want people to feel bad. But as a society, we've chosen to eliminate the feelings rather try to eliminate the poverty.

GLENN: Yes, yes.

STU: And as Ben Franklin -- again, this is Ben freaking Franklin --

GLENN: Who started the first public hospital. Who started the volunteer fire departments. I mean, this guy -- who gave away his patent of the potbelly stove because it would help -- the number one cause of death in America for females was burning to death.

So he understood -- I don't need to make money on this. I have plenty of money. I'm going to give this away so everyone can make it and everyone can have the potbelly stove. So here's one of the most charitable men around, but he understood, the more you make people comfortable in their poverty, the more you strip them of the reasons of standing up on their own again. And that is morally wrong.

I believe we will have -- we will have to answer for the people we have crippled.

I had -- you know, my kids, my kids work for me. And when I had a new guy come in, John, who is president of my company, he said, "I don't want to manage your kids." And I said, "Why not?" And he said, "Are you kidding me?"

No. And I said, no, no, no, there's no different rules for them. There's no different rules. If they deserve to be fired, fire them.

"Right."

STU: Right.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: No, fire them.

JEFFY: You believe that, I know.

GLENN: What?

JEFFY: You believe that, I know.

GLENN: No, no, but I said to him, "And he'll be doing me a great disservice if he wouldn't be truthful with me." Moreover, he will be doing them a great disservice because you can't -- I talked to my kids just recently. I am so afraid that I am crippling them because they are working for me, and they like working with me. And they like, you know, being around and working as a family and blah, blah, blah. But I don't want to ever strip them of that -- like I won't -- I won't overpay my kids. You make market value.

STU: I mean, Glenn, you have been saying this since before some of them were born.

JEFFY: That's true.

STU: Literally, you believe this as a central part of your life. I still -- I would still be believing John.

JEFFY: Thank you.

STU: I would still be terrified by -- because you come into a new company. And the owner's kids -- I don't care what the owner says to you. I would be terrified about it.

GLENN: Yeah, but you know I mean it.

STU: But I know you mean it. Because you said it -- I mean, before Raphe and Cheyenne were even born, you were doing this on the air, talking about the Carnegies and going back to the --

GLENN: Vanderbilt.

STU: And the Vanderbilts. You know, talking about how they believed that they ruined their kids by --

GLENN: I tell my kids all the time, "You're not getting a dime." Because, A, dad is spending it all. But you're not getting a dime. I'm not leaving you stuff. I'm not leaving you stuff. You have to earn what you have. You have to.

And we cripple people by doing that. And there's no difference between -- I learned this, as Stu said, from Vanderbilt. I was standing in The Breakers, the Vanderbilt mansion. And there's this letter from Vanderbilt from his diary up on the wall of his bedroom where he used to write his diary. And I don't remember exactly what it said. But basically, the gist was: I fear I am doing my family a great disservice. The more I give them, the more I provide, the less incentive they have to be the person they were supposed to be.

And he did. He did a great disservice. And that stuck with me. And it's not just family. It's the country. If we cripple people, if you -- I'm an alcoholic. Anybody who -- and you guys know this. And I know -- Tania said, "You take a drink, I'm leaving you. I'm leaving you." And she means it. Any doubt in that one?

STU: Oh, no.

GLENN: She means that. I know you guys would be the same thing. You would not cover up for my drinking. You would not cover up for any kind of problem.

STU: We would exploit it for everything it's worth.

GLENN: Yeah, hello. Right? Because you'd know you were doing me a disservice. That's where we have to get. Compassion sometimes is really hard.

PAT: Yeah. We've spent -- we talked about this a bunch of times. We've spent $22 trillion on the War On Poverty. $22 trillion!

JEFFY: Where has that gone?

PAT: To make things better for poverty.

STU: That's a lot of compassion. That's a lot of compassion right there.

PAT: And all it's done is keep them in poverty. That's all it's done.

GLENN: And I think destroy the family.

PAT: It has. It has. Especially the black family.

Featured Image: Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) painting by Joseph Duplessis, Wiki Commons

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.