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

Ben Shapiro Shows How You Win a Pro-Life Argument

September 18, 2017
Staff

WRITER

What happened?

A “controversial” pro-life speaker and a college student last week debated some typical pro-abortion arguments. Glenn and Stu analyzed the clip on radio Monday.

Who was speaking?

Ben Shapiro, a conservative writer and commentator who is editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire, spoke at the University of California at Berkeley on Thursday. UC Berkeley prepared for his appearance by working with local law enforcement and spending a shocking $600,000 on security measures.

During a Q&A session, an unnamed student asked Shapiro why a human fetus in the first trimester has “moral value.” While Shapiro was protested by some students on campus, the Q&A exchange about abortion was respectful on both sides.

What was Shapiro’s response?

Shapiro used basic biology for the foundation of his answer. A fetus is human because science (and common sense) says so. If you think we shouldn’t kill humans, why doesn’t a fetus have value?

“A first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, it has more value than just a cluster of cells,” Shapiro said. “If left to its natural processes, it will grow into a baby.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to talk about Ben Shapiro.

STU: Actually, you mentioned you saw Jennifer Garner in real life. And I'd rather hear about that. No offense, Ben. I'm sure -- you know, Ben is a good guy. We like Ben.

GLENN: There's a lot to be said about the Jennifer Garner thing. There's a lot. And I'm not going to share it with you.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro, he was out at Berkeley. And I want you to know that people -- people who listen will -- some, will say, oh, gee, you know -- you just kept cowering in a corner. No, uh-uh. Not cowering in a corner. Speak the truth. And speak it with wisdom and facts and without hyperbole. And without name-calling.

STU: Because I think a lot of people translate what you're saying a lot of times as cower in the corner and just, you know, go along to get along.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's not really what you're saying.

GLENN: No, no.

Your corner -- what corner? Do you belong in a corner? I don't belong in a corner. My corner is my country. I'm going to speak out and I'm going to come out for my country. I'm not going to cower in a corner.

STU: How about very divisive issues? Because sometimes --

GLENN: May I? I know you're very focused on Jennifer Garner.

STU: Can we talk about that? Because a lot of people are divided about her. And then listen about what Ben Shapiro is saying.

GLENN: This is Ben Shapiro at Berkeley. He is taking on a -- a person on the left about abortion, and listen to the way he handles this.

VOICE: So my question was about abortion, and I just wanted to know why exactly you think a first-trimester fetus has moral value.

BEN: Okay. So a first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, it has more value than just a cluster of cells. If left to its natural processes, it will grow into a baby. So the real question is: Where do you draw the line? So are you going to draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it's very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker. And they need some sort of outside force, generating their heartbeat.

okay. Are you going to do it based on brain function? Okay. Well, what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them?

The problem is any time you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults.

So either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn't. I think we both agree that adult human life has intrinsic value. Can we start from that premise?

VOICE: I believe that sentients has -- is what gives something moral value, not necessarily -- not necessarily being a human alone.

BEN: Okay. So when you're asleep, can I stab you?

(laughter)

VOICE: I'm still considered sentient when I'm asleep.

BEN: Okay. If you are a coma from which you can awake, can I stab you?

VOICE: Well, then, no. I guess not.

BEN: I'm glad you answered that. Because I have no interest in actually murdering you.

VOICE: But that's still potential sentience, and it's still a potential --

BEN: I agree. It has potential sentience. You know what else has potential sentience? Being a fetus.

GLENN: Oh, man. See, there's nothing better.

STU: Yeah.

VOICE: If I'm in a coma and I'm not like doing anything to anyone, I'm not causing any issues amongst the world -- whereas, an unwanted child may or may not be a burden to people.

BEN: There are lots of people's parents who are unwanted. Right? Or a bunch of college students.

The problem is, that now -- so now you're shifting the argument. Right?

Before you were making the argument based on the intrinsic value of a life based on sentience, and now you're talking about the level of burden that somebody presents as a separate moral argument.

Okay. I don't believe that you being a burden on somebody is justification for them killing you, as a general rule.

VOICE: I'll leave it at that, but I appreciate you.

BEN: Thanks.

GLENN: I'll leave it at that. Yeah, you probably -- you probably should.

STU: You should probably leave the state after that.

(chuckling)

That's amazing. Because how you could -- first of all, you could go to their last argument there. A burden? You know, look a lot of people -- when you have someone who is hooked up to machines in a coma, what a -- it's an incredible burden on a family.

GLENN: And the state.

STU: But because you care about human life, you still try to fight through it. And the state, right. Cost. There's a million things you could argue on that. That is embarrassing.

And the reason -- you could fault the guy for making the point the way he did. The problem is, there's no value in the point. It's not that he made the point poorly, it's that the point is ridiculous.

GLENN: So, but here is the thing: Being able to have that dialogue -- and that's, quite honestly, why people want to shut other people up. And when you don't have the -- when you don't have the intellectual firepower of Ben Shapiro, then you get down to -- well, that's -- your side did it first.

And there's just no -- there's nothing to be gained there. Nothing to be gained.

STU: There is a moment where you go into like the gym at your local Y. And, you know, you're going into -- a bit of a pickup team. It's like, eh, I got one other guy I'm just going to bring in. And just, LeBron James walks in. That is the Ben Shapiro moment.

GLENN: Yeah.

He is probably our William F. Buckley. He and Jonah Goldberg are probably the William F. Buckley of our generation.

STU: It's one of those things, when you have one of those guys on your side, you're never losing an argument.

GLENN: Yeah.

PHOTOS: Inside Glenn's private White House tour

Image courtesy of the White House

In honor of Trump's 100th day in office, Glenn was invited to the White House for an exclusive interview with the President.

Naturally, Glenn's visit wasn't solely confined to the interview, and before long, Glenn and Trump were strolling through the majestic halls of the White House, trading interesting historical anecdotes while touring the iconic home. Glenn was blown away by the renovations that Trump and his team have made to the presidential residence and enthralled by the history that practically oozed out of the gleaming walls.

Want to join Glenn on this magical tour? Fortunately, Trump's gracious White House staff was kind enough to provide Glenn with photos of his journey through the historic residence so that he might share the experience with you.

So join Glenn for a stroll through 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the photo gallery below:

The Oval Office

  

Image courtesy of the White House

The Roosevelt Room

  

Image courtesy of the White House

The White House

  

Image courtesy of the White House

Trump branded a tyrant, but did Obama outdo him on deportations?

Genaro Molina / Contributor | Getty Images

MSNBC and CNN want you to think the president is a new Hitler launching another Holocaust. But the actual deportation numbers are nowhere near what they claim.

Former MSNBC host Chris Matthews, in an interview with CNN’s Jim Acosta, compared Trump’s immigration policies to Adolf Hitler’s Holocaust. He claimed that Hitler didn’t bother with German law — he just hauled people off to death camps in Poland and Hungary. Apparently, that’s what Trump is doing now by deporting MS-13 gang members to El Salvador.

Symone Sanders took it a step further. The MSNBC host suggested that deporting gang-affiliated noncitizens is simply the first step toward deporting black Americans. I’ll wait while you try to do that math.

The debate is about control — weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent.

Media mouthpieces like Sanders and Matthews are just the latest examples of the left’s Pavlovian tribalism when it comes to Trump and immigration. Just say the word “Trump,” and people froth at the mouth before they even hear the sentence. While the media cries “Hitler,” the numbers say otherwise. And numbers don’t lie — the narrative does.

Numbers don’t lie

The real “deporter in chief” isn’t Trump. It was President Bill Clinton, who sent back 12.3 million people during his presidency — 11.4 million returns and nearly 900,000 formal removals. President George W. Bush, likewise, presided over 10.3 million deportations — 8.3 million returns and two million removals. Even President Barack Obama, the progressive darling, oversaw 5.5 million deportations, including more than three million formal removals.

So how does Donald Trump stack up? Between 2017 and 2021, Trump deported somewhere between 1.5 million and two million people — dramatically fewer than Obama, Bush, or Clinton. In his current term so far, Trump has deported between 100,000 and 138,000 people. Yes, that’s assertive for a first term — but it's still fewer than Biden was deporting toward the end of his presidency.

The numbers simply don’t support the hysteria.

Who's the “dictator” here? Trump is deporting fewer people, with more legal oversight, and still being compared to history’s most reviled tyrant. Apparently, sending MS-13 gang members — violent criminals — back to their country of origin is now equivalent to genocide.

It’s not about immigration

This debate stopped being about immigration a long time ago. It’s now about control — about weaponizing the courts, twisting language, and using moral panic to silence dissent. It’s about turning Donald Trump into the villain of every story, facts be damned.

If the numbers mattered, we’d be having a very different national conversation. We’d be asking why Bill Clinton deported six times as many people as Trump and never got labeled a fascist. We’d be questioning why Barack Obama’s record-setting removals didn’t spark cries of ethnic cleansing. And we’d be wondering why Trump, whose enforcement was relatively modest by comparison, triggered lawsuits, media hysteria, and endless Nazi analogies.

But facts don’t drive this narrative. The villain does. And in this script, Trump plays the villain — even when he does far less than the so-called heroes who came before him.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Can Trump stop the blackouts that threaten America's future?

Allan Tannenbaum / Contributor | Getty Images

If America wants to remain a global leader in the coming decades, we need more energy fast.

It's no secret that Glenn is an advocate for the safe and ethical use of AI, not because he wants it, but because he knows it’s coming whether we like it or not. Our only option is to shape AI on our terms, not those of our adversaries. America has to win the AI Race if we want to maintain our stability and security, and to do that, we need more energy.

AI demands dozens—if not hundreds—of new server farms, each requiring vast amounts of electricity. The problem is, America lacks the power plants to generate the required electricity, nor do we have a power grid capable of handling the added load. We must overcome these hurdles quickly to outpace China and other foreign competitors.

Outdated Power Grid

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Our power grid is ancient, slowly buckling under the stress of our modern machines. AAI’s energy demands could collapse it without a major upgrade. The last significant overhaul occurred under FDR nearly a century ago, when he connected rural America to electricity. Since then, we’ve patched the system piecemeal, but it’s still the same grid from the 1930s. Over 70 percent of the powerlines are 30 years old or older, and circuit breakers and other vital components are in similar condition. Most people wouldn't trust a dishwasher that was 30 years old, and yet much of our grid relies on technology from the era of VHS tapes.

Upgrading the grid would prevent cascading failures, rolling blackouts, and even EMP attacks. It would also enable new AI server farms while ensuring reliable power for all.

A Need for Energy

JONATHAN NACKSTRAND / Stringer | Getty Images

Earlier this month, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt appeared before Congress as part of an AI panel and claimed that by 2030, the U.S. will need to add 96 gigawatts to our national power production to meet AI-driven demand. While some experts question this figure, the message is clear: We must rapidly expand power production. But where will this energy come from?

As much as eco nuts would love to power the world with sunshine and rainbows, we need a much more reliable and significantly more efficient power source if we want to meet our electricity goals. Nuclear power—efficient, powerful, and clean—is the answer. It’s time to shed outdated fears of atomic energy and embrace the superior electricity source. Building and maintaining new nuclear plants, along with upgraded infrastructure, would create thousands of high-paying American jobs. Nuclear energy will fuel AI, boost the economy, and modernize America’s decaying infrastructure.

A Bold Step into the Future

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

This is President Trump’s chance to leave a historic mark on America, restoring our role as global leaders and innovators. Just as FDR’s power grid and plants made America the dominant force of the 20th century, Trump could upgrade our infrastructure to secure dominance in the 21st century. Visionary leadership must cut red tape and spark excitement in the industry. This is how Trump can make America great again.

POLL: Did astronomers discover PROOF of alien life?

Print Collector / Contributor | Getty Images

Are we alone in the universe?

It's no secret that Glenn keeps one eye on the cosmos, searching for any signs of ET. Late last week, a team of astronomers at the University of Cambridge made an exciting discovery that could change how we view the universe. The astronomers were monitoring a distant planet, K2-18b, when the James Webb Space Telescope detected dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, two atmospheric gases believed only to be generated by living organisms. The planet, which is just over two and a half times larger than Earth, orbits within the "habitable zone" of its star, meaning the presence of liquid water on its surface is possible, further supporting the possibility that life exists on this distant world.

Unfortunately, humans won't be able to visit K2-18b to see for ourselves anytime soon, as the planet is about 124 light-years from Earth. This means that even if we had rockets that could travel at the speed of light, it would still take 124 years to reach the potentially verdant planet. Even if humans made the long trek to K2-18b, they would be faced with an even more intense challenge upon arrival: Gravity. Assuming K2-18b has a similar density to Earth, its increased size would also mean it would have increased gravity, two and a half times as much gravity, to be exact. This would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for humans to live or explore the surface without serious technological support. But who knows, give Elon Musk and SpaceX a few years, and we might be ready to seek out new life (and maybe even new civilizations).

But Glenn wants to know what you think. Could K2-18b harbor life on its distant surface? Could alien astronomers be peering back at us from across the cosmos? Would you be willing to boldly go where no man has gone before? Let us know in the poll below:

Could there be life on K2-18b?

Could there be an alien civilization thriving on K2-18b?

Will humans develop the technology to one day explore distant worlds?

Would you sign up for a trip to an alien world?

Is K2-18b just another cold rock in space?