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

Oh the Irony, California and Oregon Unwittingly Support Constitutional Principles

November 11, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The folks in California and Oregon are fed up. They've had it up to here with the federal government taking their taxes and telling them what to do. Naturally, the next logical step would be secession. Or, hold that thought, perhaps they might consider following the Constitution?

"I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

RELATED: Donald Trump’s Election Spurs Secession Talk in Oregon, California

That's the beauty of the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Our brilliant Founders created a system by which states could uniquely follow their own beliefs, without imposing them on other states. But what did they know? The Founders were old, racist men whose ideas have become outdated and irrelevant. At least, that's what progressive liberals would like you to believe.

"If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be. Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years," Co-host Stu Burguiere said.

The Founders recognized that diversity would strengthen the United States of America, not diminish it. They built our system of government accordingly, making provisions for the states to be different and unique.

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

• If California jumped off a bridge should we all do it?

• Why is the Tenth Amendment the perfect tool for diversity?

• Why does each state have its own flag and motto?

• What does E pluribus unum mean, and why do progressives believe the opposite?

• Did Barack Obama help or hurt Democrats?

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

GLENN: Let's talk a little about secession. California and Oregon are talking now about seceding. And I find that amazing because, A, that was so un-American to talk about when Barack Obama was president. But now it's very, very popular. And I would just like to speak to California for a second. One of their big issues is they're tired of their tax dollars going to the federal government. They want control of their tax dollars and have their tax dollars stay at home for California.

JEFFY: Huh.

GLENN: And they want to make their decisions, not be dictated to by the federal government.

PAT: Huh. What a concept.

GLENN: We would just like to say, we want that too.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You may be surprised that you're not a progressive if you believe in that. You're a constitutionalist. Because that's what the Constitution guarantees that we have now just dismissed.

So if you believe those things, then you're actually a constitutionalist, and you don't need to secede. You need to join us. You need to join us. And come with us on the Constitution. Because once we restore that, those feelings go away.

PAT: If that's their issue, Hillary wasn't the right candidate. You voted for the wrong person.

GLENN: I don't think these are Hillary people. These are Bernie Sanders people.

PAT: Well, that's even worse.

GLENN: At best. At best.

PAT: Bernie Sanders would have been even worse for that.

GLENN: No.

PAT: A socialist?

GLENN: No, no. No. Because here's what people -- here's the problem: People are playing politics, and they're not playing principles. So they're perfectly fine being California as part of the United States, as long as the rest of the United States does it the way Californians want.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And so that's called authoritarianism. They're not really for freedom. They are for their rule of law. And if the rest of the country won't go that way, well then, they don't want to be a part of the country.

PAT: Yeah, but Bernie Sanders is a strong central government guy.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: The strongest central government --

GLENN: Again, they would have --

PAT: -- we know of in public office.

GLENN: Right. Because they only care about what they want. They believe they're right and everyone else is wrong. And so, as long as we have a strong central figure in Washington that is forcing everyone else to live the way we want to live, well, then, that's great. Then we'll make everybody's life happy because we're going to teach those people in Texas just how happy they're going to be. Right?

JEFFY: It will be fascinating to see how much --

GLENN: You know what it is -- hang on just a second. It is exactly the argument that Jefferson Davis made. He said states' rights.

Well, no, he didn't really mean states' rights. Because if you joined in the rebellion, you had to be a slave-owning state. You had to be for the furtherance of slavery. So they -- they weren't talked about states' rights. They were fighting for their system of government.

That's the same thing with California. They're not talking about, "Hey, we want to be free in California." They're saying, "No, we want everybody to live this way. If you choose to, we're taking our marbles and going home."

Oregon is also going for this. And there's no sense of irony from the press. There's no sense of, "Hang on just a second, how did we treat Texans when they said this?"

And you have to understand, Texas has been saying this -- Pat's right -- since 1837. Texans have been saying this from the very beginning. I don't know how Texas ever became a state.

(chuckling)

GLENN: Because this is the way Texas has been from the beginning: secede. But California says, "Hey, we're the -- what is it? The sixth largest economy in the world. We'll take this economy."

Okay. I really don't -- I mean, I know this is very unpopular to say, "But I'm really okay with that." I don't think we should secede from the union. I think we should live the Constitution, which would allow California to be as weird and progressive as they want to be. Let them do it. That's fine. If I want to join them, I'll join them in California.

STU: That's kind of what federalism is, in a way. It's a way of 50 countries under a very generalized group of rules, but they can do whatever they want inside those rules. I mean, in a way, it is 50 different countries inside a country.

GLENN: That's the way it used to be.

STU: That's the way it's supposed to be.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: If you actually used the Tenth Amendment, then that's what it would be.

Instead, the people that now want to secede in California have been saying the Tenth Amendment is Satan for the past 100 years.

GLENN: Otherwise, why do we have state flags? Why do we have state flags? Why don't we all just have one star that says, California, Texas? You know, just a flag more like Texas that is red, white, and blue, has the strips, but just one star. We're one of 50.

Because we're all unique. We all have different mottos. We all have different things we focus on. We all have different strengths. We all have different weaknesses. E pluribus unum. From many, one. But we're not -- the progressive idea is to not have many.

It's to have just one. I'll tell you, the Democrats are going to -- the Democrats have a hard, hard road. They thought that Barack Obama was going to help them. I don't think so.

Now, I do believe he's helped the Marxists. He's helped the socialist. He's helped the radicals of the party. But who are you going to elect four years down the road? It will be somebody like Bernie Sanders. It's got to be somebody like Elizabeth Warren. It's got to be somebody who is --

PAT: Radical.

GLENN: Radical.

STU: And this is the same thing -- think about -- go back in election history. John McCain runs and loses. Mitt Romney runs and loses. What is the reaction of the right?

It's to say, "Well, you didn't get anybody. You did this progressive-lite thing." You did this thing where you're basically running a middle-of-the-road guy that wasn't -- didn't have conservative principles. And that's why you failed.

Same thing is going to happen in the Democrat Party now. They're going to say, "Wait a minute. We have Bernie Sanders. He ignited the youth. Everyone was excited about him." His polling, by the way, if you go back and look at it -- and I think there's flaws with these comparisons. But his polling was great in a general. I mean, he beat everybody in a general, Sanders.

PAT: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think.

STU: Which he wouldn't have, I don't think if it was real life, but God only knows at this point.

PAT: I don't think -- yeah.

GLENN: I think it would have been close -- I said from the beginning, Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders, give a real choice. Because I think Bernie Sanders would speak to the next generation. He could be America 3.0.

Featured Image: Based on flag flown during the Bear Flag Revolt. Contains a single red star, a red stripe along the bottom, and a grizzly bear. The Bear Flag is the official flag of the state of California. The precursor of the flag was first flown during the 1846 Bear Flag Revolt and was also known as the Bear Flag. (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.