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

History of Texas Part II: The Battle for Independence

March 01, 2017
Staff

WRITER

The battle for Texas independence spanned many years and famous battles, including the Battle of the Alamo and Goliad Massacre. The final showdown --- the Battle of San Jancinto --- took only 18 minutes and saw only six Texans killed compared to 600 Mexican soldiers. Another 700 were captured.

An hour after the carnage, Santa Anna himself was captured and brought before General Sam Houston. The general's men called for execution, but Houston had something else in mind: Victory and independence for the Republic of Texas, with Santa Anna signing a treaty to end hostilities.

The 18-minute battle remains one of the greatest military victories in world history. With it, the proud Republic of Texas was born.

Listen to this segment:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

GLENN: Mexico encouraged white settlers from the United States to populate the huge desolate area known as Texas. There were very few Mexicans there. No one knew how to deal with the natives, and they wanted the area settled to discourage the United States from annexing it.

So when Stephen F. Austin petitioned the New Mexican government, freshly independent from Spain to abide by his grant his father Moses had obtained from the Spaniards about bringing 300 American families in to colonize Texas, Mexico was initially excited about the idea. It was kind of like a job that Mexicans just wouldn't do.

However, the success of the movement overwhelmed the Mexicans, and they became concerned about losing the area entirely.

By 1829, tens of thousands of Americans had settled in Texas, with just a handful of Mexicans remaining there. They sent their trusted Mexican general to assess the problem.

The general reported back that Mexico had better stop the immigration from the United States. Does any of this sound familiar? Or they'd lose Texas forever. Anglo-Texans outnumbered the Mexicans there by a 10:1 margin.

Mexico responded by passing laws that ended immigration to Texas and imposed new taxes and new tariffs. The Texans, or Texians as they were called, widely resented the new laws. And in 1832 and '33, held conventions to draw up a new Texas constitution, modeled after the Constitution of the United States.

After the convention in 1833, Stephen F. Austin decided he was going to set off for Mexico City. And he was going to present the Constitution and the proposal for Texas independence to the Mexican government, and they're going to love this.

They didn't love this.

VOICE: In Mexico City, Austin had first seemed to think that things were going very well. He had met with Santa Anna. With General Antonio López de Santa Anna and had the sense that Texas would be granted more autonomy. Then he wrote an indiscreet letter from Mexico City, suggesting that whatever happened, Texas ought to take initiative and secure its own autonomy.

VOICE: Austin's letter was intercepted, and he was put in jail in Mexico City. He would be kept there for nearly two years. Upon his return, he had formed strong opinions of Santa Anna and the Mexican government.

VOICE: Santa Anna is a base, unprincipled bloody monster. War is our only recourse.

No halfway measures, but war in full. Stephen Austin, 1835.

GLENN: By 1835 relations had hit a fevered pitch.

Years earlier, Mexico had given a six-pound cannon to the residents of the city of Gonzalez, Texas, to help them deal with the attacks from the Comanche Indians.

Now, in retrospect, giving that cannon to fired-up Texans kind of seemed like a bad idea. So they asked for that cannon back. The residents of Gonzalez said, "I don't think so."

The Mexicans demanded the cannon back. Their defiant answer was, "Come and take it."

While Santa Anna's troops tried to do just that, and they were soundly beaten back by the militia in Gonzalez who used the cannon against them.

Now, because of his prior experience under Andrew Jackson in the war of 1812, the Texians appointed former Tennessee governor Sam Houston as their commander-in-chief of their forces. But there was only one problem: They didn't have any forces.

But like Texans usually do: They just pressed on.

VOICE: On March 2nd, 1836, delegates finally met at Washington on the Brazos and declared independence from Mexico. Sam Houston was instrumental in helping draft the new republic of Texas Constitution. And finally, it seemed that a workable government might actually be constructed.

GLENN: That's when Santa Anna gathered an army of 4,000 had to 5,000 troops and headed north to put down the rebellion. The war was on.

A small contingent, many from Gonzalez stayed in San Antonio, against the better judgment of Sam Houston to defend the Alamo. Houston thought it was indefensible and thought it was really foolhardy to stay. But the contingent had been joined by two American frontier heroes, one of them was Jim Bowie who had moved to Texas in 1830 and joined by the legendary Davy Crockett.

Crockett had recently been defeated in an attempt for another term in the United States Congress and left Congress and then Tennessee. And he said just before he left, "I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done. But if not, they might go to hell. And I would go to Texas."

There were only 183 men defending the mission at the Alamo. Still, they kept that Mexican army at bay, of 5,000 troops for 13 days.

Then...

VOICE: At dawn of March 6th, 1836, 4,000 of Santa Anna's Mexican troops besieged the Alamo and killed all 183 Texans defending it. The battle was over in 90 minutes.

Another deadly siege for the Texans would ensue. This time at the mission of Goliad under the command of Colonel James Fannin.

VOICE: Fannin makes an attempt to withdraw. It's too slow. He's caught out on the open prairies, forced to surrender. The Mexicans marched them back. And a week later, under Santana's orders, the entire Goliad command is executed at the so-called Goliad Massacre.

GLENN: The defenders of the Alamo fought ferociously, with reports that they took 600 to 1500 Mexican soldiers to the grave with them. However, 400 more Texan militia men were slaughtered execution-style at Goliad, enflaming and enraging every man, woman, and child who heard the story.

Independence for Texas seemed nearly impossible now. Two massacres, and General Sam Houston in full retreat. For weeks, he continued to allude Santa Anna, waiting for the right time. Starting with an army of 300, but by late April, there were so many enraged Texans that were joining his army which had now grown to just over 900 men.

Houston managed to avoid battle with Santa Anna's large army for over a month, until finally both armies wound up near what is present day Houston, Texas. The date, April 21st, 1836.

Two armies camped at San Jacinto. Yes, that's the right way to say it in Texas. They were on the bayou about a mile away from each other, about to make military history. 3:30 that afternoon, the angry Texans were in a frenzy.

VOICE: The rebels advanced (phonetic) on the Mexican barricades, screaming like banshees their battle cry: Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad!

Flustered, disoriented, the Mexicans began to fall back. First as individuals, but then as entire squads.

VOICE: For 18 minutes, blood and carnage ruled the battlefield at San Jacinto.

VOICE: I sat there on my horse, and I shot them until my ammunition gave out. Then I turned the butt end of my musket and started knocking them in the head. Private William Young.

VOICE: Mexicans fired one volley most of which went over the heads of the Texans. That's when Houston was hit. And his horse was hit. The Texans then advanced to maybe 20 yards away. They fired and then charged and broke through.

VOICE: All discipline was at an end. We fired as rapidly as we could. As soon as we fired, each man reloaded, and he who got his gun ready first moved on without waiting for orders. Private Alfonso Steele, 1836.

GLENN: The ragtag independence-minded Texas militia wouldn't be denied their chance to crush the Mexican Army.

VOICE: The Texans are in an absolute killing frenzy of revenge and fall upon any of the Mexican soldatos, some of whom begged for their lives, yelling, me no Alamo, me no Goliad. That finds them little mercy.

Most of the Mexicans actually fall back into a marsh area, into a lake. By the end of the day, Peggy Lake is completely crammed full of Mexican bodies, and the waters of Peggy Lake are thoroughly red.

VOICE: They had plunged into the mire and water with horses and mules. Everyone who seemed to escape, soon received a ball from the murderous aim of a practiced riflemen. And the bayou was literally bridged over with carcasses of dead mules, horses, and men.

Sam Houston, 1836.

GLENN: Meanwhile, there were just six Texan casualties compared to 600 Mexican soldiers dead, 700 more captured.

An hour after the carnage, Santa Anna himself was captured and brought before General Houston. Houston's men called out for execution. But Houston had something else in mind. Victory.

Victory and independence for the Republic of Texas, which the battle forced Santa Anna to sign.

The 18-minute battle still today one of the greatest and most incredible military victories in world history. And with it, the proud Republic of Texas was born.

Next time, the larger-than-life figures in the fight for Texas independence.

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.