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

Stop Pretending Conservatives and the ‘Alt-Right’ Are the Same Group

January 23, 2018
Staff

WRITER

A recent USA Today news article wrongly tied Nazi Twitter accounts and the Daily Stormer to the conservative group PragerU.

CEO Marissa Streit joined Glenn on today’s show to talk about why conflating conservatives who believe in American principles with white supremacist hate groups is a serious problem. It’s ridiculous and inaccurate to list PragerU as part of an article about the “alt-right,” a group generally characterized by nationalist and white supremacist ideals.

PragerU, which makes educational videos on conservative topics, is suing Google and YouTube for arbitrarily censoring and demonetizing its videos on U.S. history; Christians who are persecuted worldwide; American leadership; and other topics.

Looking for the petition discussed in this podcast? Follow this link.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There's an incredible story that was in USA Today.

Alt-right escalates war against Silicon Valley. Pledges to expose bias against conservatives. The alt-right. If you read this story, it talks -- you know, it talks about Nazi groups. It talks about the Klan. It talks about the website. The Daily Stormer. Which is a Nazi website.

And then, lumped in along with everything else, is Prager University.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think there's a difference between Dennis Prager and Hitler. One of them might be the whole Jewish thing.

The other might be that one is driven by facts. Prager University, if you have not seen a Prager U video, this is something that you need to turn your kids onto. You need to share them. You need to support them in any way you possibly can.

Prager University is -- is not a flash point. They are facts and fact-driven.

It's why you never see them taken apart. You don't see a, you know, Prager University facts are wrong, website. Because they're fact-driven. And not emotionally driven.

They are being painted as the alt-right. That just shows that the media has absolutely no idea what the alt-right is, or worse yet, they do, and they don't care.

We have the CEO of PragerU on with us. You've been on before. Melissa (sic), how are you?

MARISSA: Wonderful, thank you for having me on.

GLENN: So, you know, how are things at the office when you read about you and the alt-right and the Nazis all being, you know --

MARISSA: You know, I wish it was laughable because it's almost laughable. But, you know, a few things I know you know about me. First of all, I'm a Jew. Dennis Prager is a Jew.

GLENN: Whoa, when did the Nazi party start to let Jews in?

MARISSA: I mean, we couldn't be further away from the alt-right. Basically, nothing that we believe in, the alternative right, which is basically the alternative to the right, the alternative to conservatism, has more in common with the left than with conservatives. We actually have a video on that, by Mike Knowles.

But this is -- this is a typical tactic of the left. They conflate any of the bad guys with conservatives. And try to make consumers and the audience assume that because we are the bad guys, it's okay to take us down.

As you know, Prager University's videos are completely fact-based. To claim that we have in common with the right is a typical tactic to try to undermine our efforts and our lawsuit against YouTube.

GLENN: So, Marissa, you and I have talked about this privately and on the air before. There is a concerted effort by, I believe, the big four, Facebook, Apple, Google, what's the -- what's the last one? I'm trying to think. The big four.

Anyway, there is a -- there is an effort to silence the voices of anyone on the right.

I mean, what Facebook is doing now with, you know, hey, tell us what news sources you think are credible. That's going to put places like Breitbart, TheBlaze, Daily Wire. It could put us out of business. And they know it. And they know it.

How do we survive in this world where -- where Google and Facebook can control so many eyeballs and are -- and are using these kinds of tactics to ban people who are really trying to be reasonable like PragerU.

MARISSA: You know, Glenn, I can't tell you how much I appreciate that you get this. Because this is so dangerous. As somebody who works with millennials and runs an organization that specifically is geared toward speaking and educating millennials, this is very, very dangerous. This is exactly why we've taken on this lawsuit, because the public needs to be aware of the fact that these big fours, as you're saying, have an ideological bent. They have an ideological bias.

And they're not afraid to do whatever it takes to take conservatives down. And that includes lying about who their -- their content creators are.

And, I mean, they hide information from us. This past week, we had another issue with Twitter. It's -- it's pretty unbelievable what's happening out there. I'm not sure what can be done. But the public needs to be aware of the fact that they are in control of the biggest communication platforms in the world. And if we don't do something about it, it's going to get real bad, real soon.

GLENN: Well, it's really disturbing. You know, people don't know this. But Facebook runs an algorithm. Not only are they now saying that we're going to choose which news sites are credible and which ones aren't, and we're not going to spread ones that we think are not credible, I can guarantee you, there's nothing on the right that is going to be deemed credible to Facebook.

Not only are they doing that, and that hasn't even started yet, that is coming very, very soon. They are also changing their algorithm, which is, you know, their right to do. Et cetera, et cetera.

But I will tell you that not my website, thank God, but one of the conservative websites went from their largest day ever and their largest quarter, just keep growing and growing and growing -- in one day, they lost 90 percent of their traffic. Because Facebook targeted the algorithm differently. There's no way media companies, especially on the right, that, you know, are not getting big funding, there's no way to survive.

MARISSA: For social media platforms to claim that the reason that some of the conservative platforms are not getting as many views is because of some sort of algorithm, is -- is ridiculous. Because at the end of the day, who is writing the algorithms? You can't just say, well, it's the algorithm's fault. A human being is behind writing the algorithm. And that's the main issue.

GLENN: I agree. I agree.

MARISSA: They are writing algorithms that are suppressing our information. We see this -- I mean, YouTube has admitted to us. In writing, they've sent us an email saying, we review your content, and we deem your content inappropriate for a young audience. So they make us look like we're some evil bad guys. And because of that, they can block our -- our content and our information, which is exactly what was done in this USA Today. Whoever reported on this, is totally irresponsible, to conflate PragerU with the alt-right is basically irresponsible reporting.

GLENN: And, you know, I have to tell you, the Young Turks, one of the most irresponsible group of people I have ever seen, they got a 20-million-dollar funding from people including Jeffrey Katzenberg.

And I can also guarantee you that their YouTube channel is never going to receive anything. They'll always be spread by YouTube. They'll always be spread by Google. And they are indeed radicals.

I mean, just look up the definition and the history of the Young Turks. And you kind of know where they're coming from. And yet, Dan Rather joined them because they've been normalized.

MARISSA: It's interesting you bring up Young Turks because they have done video responses to some of our videos. And, you know, they get millions of views on -- on the videos that they create. And YouTube has no issue with that. But when PragerU creates videos on opposing views, you know, our videos end up getting demonetized and restricted.

GLENN: And, you know what, I have no problem -- if the Young Turks wants to present an opposing opinion to PragerU, more power to them. But it should be on an even playing field, and we should not be having this nonsense back and forth, algorithms, and people that we know through the words of Media Matters themselves, that they are inside of YouTube and Google and all of the big four, trying to help them understand what radicalism is on the right. They have absolutely no idea. And by -- by coming after people like PragerU, you are only making the alt-right much stronger. Do you agree with that?

MARISSA: First of all, I agree with it. And secondly, the alt-right is actually not as big as they claim it to be. But they create this hysteria around the alt-right. And then they conflate conservatives, conservative Christians with the alt-right in order to make us look like -- again, like the bad guys. In order to justify their efforts to undermined our efforts. I mean, if you think about it, the alt-right has more -- again, they have more in common with the left. They are obsessed with race and identity politics. They reject Christianity. Many of them are actually atheists who reject God. They have a disdain for the individual. They're obsessed with group identity, as anti-American as a concept as it gets. They have more in common with the left. But they try to make conservatives look like they're the same thing as the alt-right. And it's all under one specific agenda, which is to undermine those who have opposing views to theirs. And they'll do whatever it takes. Anything from lying, you know, making up facts that are obviously, you know, lies.

I don't know where it's going to end. This is why we need the public to help us. This is why we're suing YouTube. We have a petition. I invite, you know, your audience. Many of your -- I know that many of the people who listen to you have already signed our petition. But there needs to be a public outcry over this.

GLENN: I cannot urge you strongly enough to get involved.

I mean, PragerU is taking on not YouTube. Google. You don't take on Google with, you know, your hat in your hand.

We must band together. This may be one of the more important lawsuits that are fought in our lifetime. Because your voice is going to be silenced. There is no ifs, ands, or buts. When Prager University is deemed as radical and something that YouTube really needs to watch over and this he need to make sure they keep it away from kids, we have real issues.

When they -- when the press starts to compare PragerU with Nazis, we have real issues. And you will lose your voice. And it's happening right now.

Where can you go to sign the petition and help?

MARISSA: So if you go to our home page, PragerU.com -- P-R-A-G-E-R-U.com -- you'll find an icon. Just click on it. All we're asking for is that you put your email in. We want to show Google and YouTube that there are people out there who are upset about what's happening. And you can help us in whatever way you can. We just want to make the public aware and put some pressure on Google to change their ways.

GLENN: Marissa, thank you so much, God bless.

MARISSA: Thank you. God bless you. Bye.

GLENN: My best to Dennis.

EXCLUSIVE: Tech Ethicist reveals 5 ways to control AI NOW

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.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

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.