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

Low-Level Democrat Strategist Fails Miserably to Make a Name for Himself on Social Media

June 20, 2017
Staff

WRITER

So much for hoping the rhetoric would dial down following last week's shooting at a GOP baseball practice where five people were shot. Tuesday on radio, Glenn addressed Democratic strategist Jim Devine starting a hashtag that turned a few heads, and a few stomaches --- #HuntRepublicans.

RELATED: Tucker Carlson Shuts Down Democratic Strategist Who Tweeted ‘Hunt Republican Congressmen’

"What was that guy doing? He was hunting. He had a list of people he was trying to kill. He was an assassin. That's like after Oswald, you say, 'Hunt Soviets. Hunt Russians in America. Hunt -- hunt Republicans then.' What are you talking about? You don't use that after someone has attempted to assassinate someone," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Listen to Tucker Carlson interview a -- a -- a progressive who put out a tweet as a columnist, right after the shooting last week, with the #HuntRepublicans.

TUCKER: People were horrified, of course, by last week's assassination attempt on Republican members of Congress, which wounded five people and nearly killed House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

But most people, apparently, does not include some people, including New Jersey Democratic strategist Jim Devine. After the shooting, Devine tweeted this, quote, we are in a war with selfish, foolish, and narcissistic rich people. Why is it a shock when things turn violent? #HuntRepublicanCongressmen.

After many people objected, Devine did not back down. He followed up by tweeting this: I'm sorry if my HuntRepublicanCongressmen hashtag hurt the feelings of any G.O.P. snowflakes. But you have not engaged in civil discourse, end quote.

We invited Jim Devine to come on the show, and remarkably, he agreed. He's brave at least. Jim Devine joins us tonight.

So, Jim Devine, under what circumstances is it morally acceptable to use violence for political ends?

JIM: It's never -- it's never acceptable to use violence for political ends, except perhaps in the most extreme cases like George Washington and those guys. The fact of the matter is, we do with ballots in this country what they do with bullets elsewhere. And it is not uncommon in politics that we use the language of war. We talk about fierce rhetoric. We talk about the crusades. And so on. You were on a television program. And I don't know what your body count was, when you were on crossfire. I assume that there were no real casualties there.

PAT: Jeez.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. What is he saying there?

PAT: It's ludicrous.

GLENN: He's saying that we're used to this. We're used to this. This is violent rhetoric, sure. War rhetoric, but there was no body count on crossfire. So he is accepting CNN's crossfire. CNN's crossfire.

And saying that there was no body count.

STU: And also, by the way, retroactively mocking every Democrats' position in 2011. Retroactively saying, "That was completely fine." What do you mean? It was on crossfire. You guys, was there any body count there?

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Now, that was the exact opposite position they took when it was thought initially that a Republican may have shot a congressperson. Of course, that wound up not being true. But when they thought it was true, they said it was about the violent rhetoric. It was.

GLENN: Violent rhetoric. We got to stop the violent rhetoric. Okay.

VOICE: You know what, stop. You know what, I want to have a reasonable conversation. I want to demagogue this.

But in the hours after, five people were shot, including the House Majority Whip, you sent out a tweet that said hunt Republicans. I mean, it was clearly a reference to the assassination attempt against Congressman Scalise. It's hard to imagine how you could justify writing something like that.

JIM: In the immediate aftermath of the shooting at the Sandy Hook school, we heard people say, "This is not the time to talk about gun violence." We've heard lots of things follow this.

PAT: What does that have to do with it?

GLENN: Stop. Yeah, what does that have to do with it? In the immediate aftermath, we don't make policy decisions. That's when you're emotional. You don't -- you find out exactly what's going on.

PAT: You make terrible decisions when you're super emotional.

GLENN: Do we need to talk about the Duke lacrosse team?

PAT: Come on.

Yeah.

GLENN: When things are at an emotional high, you make really bad decisions and you destroy people's lives. That only makes sense. You don't strike out in anger.

STU: This also seems like when you have your quarterback and he gets hurt and then your backup comes in and he gets hurt and then your third string guy comes in and he get hurt, and then you have to have the punter be quarterback for the rest of the game. That's this guy's role of the Democratic Party. He is not good at this.

PAT: No.

TUCKER: But that's not what you were saying. You were encouraging gun violence. Wait. Hold on. You were encouraging gun violence.

JIM: Absolutely not. Oh, no, absolutely not. I've never encouraged gun violence, and I stated --

TUCKER: What did you mean by that? And put down that paper. I'm talking about you, not some other paper. I mean, please.

JIM: But this is what's been out there.

TUCKER: But put that down. I'm not interested in what other people --

JIM: We see stuff like this. This is not an uncommon thing --

TUCKER: That's great. But we're not -- okay.

So your excuse apparently is other people have done it. That's not an excuse. I'm here to ask you about something that you wrote, and why don't you explain it?

JIM: It's not an excuse. What I'm saying is that for too long, Republicans in this country have failed to distinguish the differences between politics and war. And a lot of Democrats have failed to see the similarities. So you guys either have to tone down the rhetoric, or we have to step up.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

TUCKER: So by saying hunt Republicans --

JIM: Hunt Republicans.

TUCKER: -- there's nothing wrong with that?

JIM: Sarah Palin put the crosshairs on Congress. I'm just saying hunt Republicans.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop.

PAT: Oh, jeez.

GLENN: Here's the difference. Here's the difference: This -- Sarah Palin did that before. He did this within hours of someone attempting to assassinate. He wasn't a shooter. He's an assassin.

PAT: Sarah Palin's implication too was target these districts for election purposes. His implication is hunt them down and shoot them. Because that happened right after the shooting.

GLENN: Target the district is different than hunt Republicans.

PAT: Unbelievable. Yeah.

GLENN: What? How do you hunt? You hunt with a gun. What was that guy doing? He was hunting. He had a list of people he was trying to kill. He was an assassin. That's like after Oswald, you say, "Hunt Soviets. Hunt Russians in America. Hunt -- hunt Republicans then."

You -- what are you talking about? You don't use that after someone has attempted to assassinate someone.

STU: Yeah. It's obviously -- the timing there is crucial. I mean, the Sarah Palin thing -- and, by the way, Democrats were also using maps with targets with them at the exact same time.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. I know. But it's been so overdone. And the press here and the Democrats -- and this is your point, I think, is we all know this.

STU: Right.

GLENN: We all know this.

STU: Yeah. It's an obvious thing. Both sides have always done it. This guy's point -- even his ridiculous point that the Democrats need to start doing it more isn't even valid. It's all a bizarre justification.

My guess is he, at the moment, tried to do something controversial so he would get attention. Because we're in that age, right? The social media age, where here's an unknown punter-level quarterback trying to make a name for himself in the Democratic Party.

GLENN: That is an insult to all punters.

STU: It is. It is.

But that's why I said punter-level quarterback. Punters are fine.

GLENN: No, no, no.

It's -- that is an insult to all punter-level quarterbacks.

STU: Okay. This is the water boy --

GLENN: Yeah. Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Oh, wow. Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow. This guy is not even in the stadium. He has not seen a football.

STU: Right.

GLENN: He thinks football is soccer. That's how far away he is.

STU: And this is a guy who thinks saying something like this will make him brave so he can get on television.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: And stand out from the other 9,000 Democratic consultants out there. But this is not --

GLENN: But he is a guy -- he is speaking a different language. And I don't think he's speaking American. He might be speaking English, but he's not speaking American.

So the question is, why is he doing this? I don't know.

Is this healthy? No.

How do we respond? That is what has tripped me up for the last probably four years. You have been asking me: Glenn, how do we get out of it?

And I've given you platitudes. I've given you, "Well, stick by your principles." And, quite honestly -- and I've said this to you before, I've given up hope. I mean, I've been lying to you, when I'm saying, "Well, there's a way out. We're going to -- been lying.

Because I know there is. I just haven't been able to find it. I don't know what it is.

I have been doing a lot of studying and a lot of soul-searching in the last eight months. The last four months, I've really gone to work and buckled down and -- and got up off the floor and said, "Okay. Enough is enough." The -- the -- the answer is surrender or find a new way to live. And I knew I didn't want to surrender. I've been here before.

As an alcoholic, I was down on the floor in my apartment that smelled like soup. And I was broke and out. And I was on the floor. And I thought to myself, "I'm either going to die and commit suicide, and I'm done, or I'm going to stand up and start again."

And I didn't have any idea when I stood up, what it was going to take. And for a long time, I didn't know. I've done it again. And this time, I am at the beginning of really knowing exactly where we need to go. And I want to share some of that with you when we come back.

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.

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.