Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Performer John Di Domenico Shares Stories From Las Vegas After the Shooting

October 02, 2017
Staff

WRITER

John Di Domenico, a performer known for his spot-on impersonations of President Donald Trump, was part of the entertainment community in Las Vegas when he lived there for six years. He shared his thoughts and emotions after the tragic shooting late Sunday night.

Several of his friends were attending the Jason Aldean concert where a gunman fired across the crowd to kill dozens of people and wound more than 500. At least 58 people have died in the biggest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Despite the fear and shock, his friends shared stories of self-sacrifice that they witnessed in front of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino.

“People really dig down and figure out how to focus and help others,” Di Domenico said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. I'm regularly heard on TheBlaze Radio Network. TheBlazeRadio.com. You want to find out more, follow me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonShow. My buddy and cohort from The Morning Blaze, Kris Cruz, as well as Kal is spinning the dials radio-style for us as well.

Last night, just hours ago, on the strip in Las Vegas, a gunman on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Hotel fired countless rounds into the crowd below, including a concert across the street. As it stands, 50 people confirmed dead. That number is likely to grow. Over 400 injured.

Just to give you the quick update. One suspect killed himself as police broke into his room. 64-year-old Stephen Paddock is his name. (cuts out)

DOC: When a man blew up the school there. Just to put it all into perspective. Prior to today, the deadliest mass shooting in America was the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. Prior to that, it was Sandy Hook.

Our friend John Di Domenico is a Trump supporter and entertainer who lives in Las Vegas. We've had him on this program and our program on the past, and has a little perspective living just, ten, 15 minutes from the Mandalay Bay.

Hey, John, how are you?

JOHN: Hey, Doc, how are you doing, man?

DOC: This is so bad, John. This is so horrible.

JOHN: This is a very small town. I moved here six years ago and was very lucky to be part of the entertainment community here. I had multiple friends at the festival. And two women, particularly. One is a singer. One is a country singer. She -- I saw that she was there. I was checking Instagram, Facebook. They were having a great time. Posting photos.

And then right before I went to bed, I checked again, and they said they were being shot at.

DOC: Wow.

JOHN: And the one woman -- I don't want to give any names for privacy. But the one -- (cuts out) was great. They're just shattered. They're horrified. This is their hometown. They went there to have a great time. And they were almost killed. So it -- it's just a horrible, horrible situation.

DOC: Well, John, let's look at a different perspective there. You're right. This is horrible. And obviously, we never want this to happen. We certainly don't want it to happen again. But let's look at some of the, albeit, small by comparison, but positive stories. The stories of self-sacrifice like that, people pushing others out of the way.

JOHN: Yeah.

DOC: Sacrificing themselves. Covering people. And ended up taking a bullet and dying themselves.

JOHN: Right.

And I just want to read you the line, what she wrote. A man that we did not know laid on top of us and covered Amy's head. He was shot from behind. The lady right next to us was grazed in the neck. So, yeah, there was a lot of heroism. We have amazing first responders here, incredible police. I also had -- you know, like I said, I had multiple friends there. And beyond the fact that it's hard to believe, yeah, a lot of people rose to the occasion. Were able to kind of be clear, move people out, get people behind the stage, get people to safety. So, yeah, there's -- in these -- in these moments, in these tragedies, people really speak out and figure out a way to focus and help others.

DOC: John, tell me about this venue. When I lived in Vegas, it was in the early '90s. The Mandalay Bay wasn't even there. It was the Hacienda back in the day. And then the strip ended up developing quite a bit after I left.

Tell me about this outdoor venue. It's diagonally across the street?

JOHN: Yeah. So Mandalay Bay is at the southern end of the Las Vegas (cuts out).

DOC: That space, it's many acres.

KRIS: Yeah, it's huge.

JOHN: It's huge.

KRIS: Like John said, you can fit the iHeartRadio concert. A lot of people do different concerts. And I actually didn't know that, that the American ninja warrior was filmed. There. That makes sense.

DOC: That makes sense.

JOHN: They fill tons of stages. And you can move around. And they have a lot of festivals. And card games. And this -- this man obviously knew this was coming to town. And he obviously asked for a room on the high floor. And then did what -- he did the unthinkable. And has shattered many, many people's lives. Killed many people.

DOC: We figured this morning, we speculated, and it made a lot of sense that he likely did this to time it when the concert was there, because he's going to have thousands and thousands of people that are a target. And that's how it seems this morning.

JOHN: Yeah.

DOC: It's interesting, John. We're looking at the pictures coming out of the Mandalay Bay this morning. And there are two windows, on the hotel, that are broken out. But it's interesting because those windows are dozens of those little squares. I don't know if that represents --

CALLER: They're full-sized windows. They're full-sized windows.

DOC: So would one of those be a room?

JOHN: Three of them would probably be a room.

DOC: So we're seeing them at kind of a point.

KRIS: It's like an X.

DOC: Yeah, it's like -- yeah, it's like that. Is on kind of like one of the points. And then eight to ten windows, kind of down the side, is another broken out window. We don't know why yet. Interesting.

JOHN: Uh-huh. Yeah, I have -- I have no idea about -- about that. I -- and this is, you know -- it would seem to me that there were -- there was another shooter. I don't want to --

DOC: Yeah, the police have not confirmed that. It could have been him. It could have been somebody else breaking out the window. It could have been anything.

JOHN: Also there's echo there. Terrible. But he was very calculating on how he did this and timed it and his angle and all those things.

DOC: So, John, I was thinking about it this morning and talking about priorities and about how some reason we don't prioritize what's important. And a lot of us don't in our own lives. It's easy to get pissed off at somebody in front of you in traffic or whatever. And you go, you know what, at least I wasn't shot up in Vegas, right? That's how it was. (cuts out)

DOC: -- melting down. I mean, this is ridiculous.

JOHN: It is. And, you know, we're -- you know, we love this -- we've all loved this country. And we're smart people. And a lot of us are from -- a lot of people who are at each other are from a lot of the same places. That have the same -- actually the same core values. When stuff like this -- you make a great point. When stuff like this happens, those other things are so trivial and actually would be so easy to come to an agreement on or get around in some way. You know what I mean? Let's work this out.

We love this country. It's an amazing place. We're living in -- you know, all -- this wonderful time as far as technology, all these things that are happening.

But to see something like this and then we're -- like you just said, a few days ago --

DOC: So stupid. You know.

JOHN: Yeah. Our lives are so short and so precious, and we're wasting time.

DOC: Screwing around with that stuff.

JOHN: Yeah.

DOC: See, John, there's no bringing back the 50 people that were killed. But still, we could come to some reasonable conversation -- or, reasonable understanding about statues, right? There's nobody dead there, right? Columbus Day being offensive to some people. Okay. We can have that discussion because nobody is dead.

JOHN: Right. Yeah. We're getting -- we're getting tied up in wasting our lives, actually.

DOC: All right.

JOHN: It's time to refocus and get back to things that are important, like human life.

DOC: Exactly. Right. That may matter, okay.

JOHN: Yeah.

DOC: John Di Domenico, buddy. Thanks so much for joining us. Okay?

JOHN: Thank you, guys. And thanks for all your prayers for Las Vegas. This is a great town. And we're going to come back. This is a great place to come and have a great time. And the police are amazing. And the first responders, like I said.

DOC: All right, John. Thanks, buddy. What I'll do is I'll tweet out a link to John's account as well so you can find him. He's a good guy.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The Crisis of Meaning: Searching for truth and purpose

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.