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

Feminist Lena Dunham Sells Dresses to Benefit Planned Parenthood, Returns Bothersome Shelter Dog

July 13, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Actress, humanitarian and animal lover Lena Dunham recently shared a very, very sad story. Her beloved dog Lamby, whom she adopted from a shelter in 2013, just had too many behavioral issues for Dunham to handle because of previous abuse Lamby suffered as a puppy. Poor Lamby. So she decided to give him up. Only, the shelter refutes Dunham's claim that Lamby suffered abuse.

Robert Vasquez, who runs the shelter, contradicted Dunham's claim that three previous owners had abused Lamby.

"Apparently, the shelter wants to know where Ms. Dunham got the information," Glenn said Thursday on radio.

Apparently, Lamby was the picture perfect, mild-mannered, well-behaved dog with no sign of a bad temperament or any kind of aggression. Now, what could have possibly changed that after being in the loving company of Ms. Dunham?

Difficult family pets are not the only thing the feminist is on board with discarding --- because it's all about convenience. The humanitarian also plans to sell off some of her clothing to benefit Planned Parenthood.

"That's a special thing, that slaughtering babies is that important to her," Co-host Pat Gray noted.

"The shirt off her back," Co-host Stu Burguiere chimed in.

In reality, she's doing the world a favor.

"She's cleaning out her closet. She's a celebrity who has a lot of clothes. She's listening to Oprah Winfrey who says, "If you don't wear something in a year, you just have to get rid of it because you're never going to wear it." So she's just getting rid of her clothes. Instead of bagging them up and bringing them to Goodwill, she's grabbing headlines because she's donating them to Planned Parenthood," Glenn said. "It's a publicity stunt."

GLENN: Okay. Lena Dunham. Should we start with the clothes to Planned Parenthood? Do we need to know anymore about -- she's selling her clothes to benefit Planned Parenthood.

PAT: And that's a special thing, that slaughtering babies is that important to her.

STU: The shirt off her back.

PAT: Yeah, giving them the shirt off her back.

GLENN: No. Come on. Here's what she's doing -- she's selling -- she's cleaning out her closet. She's a celebrity who has a lot of clothes. She's listening to Oprah Winfrey who says, "If you don't wear something in a year, you just have to get rid of it because you're never going to wear it." So she's just getting rid of her clothes. Instead of bagging them up and bringing them to Goodwill, she's grabbing headlines because she's donating them to Planned Parenthood. Oh.

STU: It is smart on her behalf probably.

GLENN: Yeah, but that's all it is: It's a publicity stunt.

STU: Yes. And I think we can all come together as a nation and say the last thing in the world we want to encourage is her having less clothing.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I would like that --

STU: Please increase the amount of clothing. I would donate -- we should all donate clothing to her so she hopefully would put some of it on.

JEFFY: Why the hate?

GLENN: I always thought I was going to hoard all my clothes for my future daughter, and now I understand, especially being a woman with reproductive illness, that I may end up with an adopted son. I may end up with a daughter who doesn't identify with her gender at birth. You can't --

STU: All the problems.

GLENN: You can't live for the future that does not exist yet. I have to take all this good fashion and fortune, and I have to spread it.

STU: That really is a publicity stunt, isn't it?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Okay.

STU: And she's looking for some good publicity, because there have been some stories about her lately that have not been so positive.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. Like this one? Try this one.

Lena Dunham wanted her fans to know what had happened to her dog Lamby. Who got a little dog Lamby? Who's got a little dog Lamby?

PAT: I think Lena does.

GLENN: Ms. Dunham. Lamby. As she adopted. And she's like, "It's like a little Lamby."

STU: That's cute.

GLENN: She adopted Lamby in 2013. The cream-colored mutt stopped making appearances in social media feeds, replaced it seemed by two fresh-faced poodles, Susan and Karen.

Okay. You went from Lamby. Who's a little Lamby? To Agnes?

Well, I'm really not their owner. You can't really own Susan or Karen.

STU: She's using gender-specific names. I mean, who knows how these things identify.

PAT: Exactly right.

GLENN: Amen. So on June 21st, Ms. Dunham disclosed on Instagram that Lamby suffered -- suffered terrible -- I can barely say it. Suffered terrible abuse as a puppy. And that because of that abuse, had resulted in behavioral problems. So she had to let Lamby go.

STU: And Lamby was like 65 big publicity stunts earlier. Where she made such a big deal about this stupid dog that she adopted. And it was her saving animals. And she adopted it from a no-kill shelter.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. No. Lamby was going to be killed.

STU: And she saved the life of this dog.

GLENN: Right. Well, the shelter saved the life of the dog. Because it's a no-kill shelter. It's not going to let little Lamby go.

Little Lamby is special. Little Lamby is no different than you. Little Lamby is just as smart as any human. Little Lamby is not looking for an owner. Is looking for a loving home. And Lena Dunham was there, with her clothes, to adopt little Lamby.

But little Lamby had been abused. Had been abused so many times by three -- by three -- not one, not two, but three owners.

And little Lamby who was so cute in all those social media posts and got little Lena and little Lamby all snuggling up next to each other for all those media posts and all that attention and all the great things that she did to help little Lamby, it must have been horrible, the abuse.

Well, actually Robert Vasquez, the -- the guy who runs the shelter, The Barc. B-A-R-C.

STU: Oh, I get it. Because it's like a barking noise.

PAT: It's adorable.

GLENN: He works at the doggie shelter where Ms. Lena got little Lamby. Said, quote, when she adopted a dog from us, it wasn't crazy. I mean, I have pictures of the dog loving on Lena and her mom, which is weird because dogs don't usually do that if it was abused.

Apparently, the shelter wants to know where Ms. Dunham got the information of the three owners. Quote, when the dog was here at Barc, where he lived with us for just under a month when he was adopted, he was a very mild-mannered, very well-behaved dog. There was no sign of bad temperament or any kind of aggression.

JEFFY: Hmm.

GLENN: Hmm.

PAT: So little Lamby hadn't been abused by three owners?

GLENN: Well -- well, the -- the place where she adopted the dog -- had no bark.

JEFFY: Barc.

STU: Oh, because it's like the dog noise, guys.

(laughter)

GLENN: Oh, man. That kills me every time.

Barc has no information about three owners. Has no information about abuse from three owners.

STU: No. Uh-uh.

GLENN: But that's because they never got to know thought Lamby.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Little Lamby has been talking to Lena because dogs can talk too. Dogs are people too. And Lena has been listening and hearing the horror stories of little Lamby. And now she got Susan and Karen who also -- not a lot of people know this, Susan and Karen are both dog psychiatrists. And Susan had Lamby lay down on the little doggie couch there. Karen was taking notes. And Susan was talking to little Lamby and said, "How does this make you feel when you have to eat your food like some oppressed caged animal, eating your food off the floor?" It's not even really a dish. It's a -- it's just a stupid bowl. But not a bowl that she eats in. Have her eat her ice cream out of that bowl. No, she won't do it.

How does that make you feel, Lamby? And that's when Lamby broke down and said, "I've had three owners who abused me so badly, that I act out sometimes. And I pee on the carpet. And I bite Lena. It's not because I hate her. It's because I've been abused."

(chuckling)

STU: Is it possible the dog made up the story to get out of that house?

GLENN: If you were a dog, wouldn't you?

STU: Yes. Bring me back. Give me to the kill shelter this time.

(laughter)

JEFFY: She keep walking around naked. She's got no clothes on. I got to get out of here.

(laughter)

GLENN: The first few nights, I had him, it was just the two of us. He's perfect, she wrote. Quiet, limp as a sack of laundry, Lamby kisses me softly every time he has the chance. Lamby's behavior shortly after: Had trouble being alone. He barked at night.

That's never happened.

JEFFY: Never.

GLENN: Never happened. A dog that barks at night? That's never happened.

PAT: Not with a normal dog.

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: That's why people don't get it at the shelter named Barc.

STU: Oh, it's like the dog noise.

GLENN: Well, a dog noise that dogs never make. They never really make that. Only bad dogs bark.

(laughter)

Only dogs that deserve to be gassed, because they've been oppressed for so long.

There's your Lena Dunham update. Probably the update not just for the day, but for the rest of our lives.

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.

Could China OWN our National Parks?

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.