50 most powerful political figures

November 03, 2010

The Glenn Beck Program

The Blaze: Rush, Beck Top Newsweek’s 50 Most Powerful Political Figures

PAT: Number two in "Newsweek" powerful political figures list.

GLENN: That's ridiculous.

PAT: I think they mixed money into this equation because I don't know how the president of the United States lands at number 20. Does anybody really think Glenn Beck is more powerful than Barack Obama?

GLENN: I think there are several around the president and the oval office, SEIU, yes.

STU: I'm going to go no on that one, the guy has a decent amount of power. You can't do anything to anyone. He can.

GLENN: All I can do is educate. That's all I can do.

STU: They have to be willing participants. Barack Obama can do things we don't have to be willing participants to, that's the difference.

GLENN: Yes, I can't be an education dictator.

STU: No.

GLENN: I can't be a conservative dictator telling you what you believe.

PAT: And that's what people get confused by all the time, calling you a Nazi and you have no power. You have no power to do anything to anybody. Nazi-type power comes from-- I don't know, the ruling power.

STU: The government. The state. Yes.

PAT: It comes from big states which is why we're always preaching about, lets have a small state so nobody has that power.

GLENN: Who is on this list?

PAT: Rush, then you, then Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Sarah Palin.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. That's the top six? One is a progressive or a liberal. One.

PAT: Jon Stewart, then IMUS, Bill Clinton, Keith Olbermann, Rudy Giuliani, Laura, Newt Gingrich, Madeleine Albright, really? Madeleine Albright, wow.

GLENN: There's got to be something spooky going on with Madeleine Albright because I don't see her power.

PAT: Stephen Colbert?

GLENN: Gosh, these the puppet master.

PAT: Maybe she's pulling Colbert's strings. Maybe that's what it is.

GLENN: Jon Stewart deserves it, seriously, Stephen Colbert, really, he was awful.

PAT: He was sad.

GLENN: It was sad.

PAT: I'm serious, too. It was sad.

GLENN: You watched somebody destroy their career.

PAT: I didn't like that guy and I felt bad.

GLENN: I felt worse for Jon Stewart because I think Jon Stewart knew it and I think he was kind of like, oh, this is killing Stephen here and I don't know if Stephen even gets it. Maybe Stephen was like, oh, the show must go on. At some point if I was Stephen Colbert, I would have said, you know, this isn't working, it is? Just to give some tip that, yeah, I jumped the shark here. I really-- this is going to ending poorly for me, isn't it? Yes, Stephen, it is.

'Really shook me': You NEED to know what my researcher told me about NUCLEAR WAR

Screenshot from BlazeTV

You need to read this. It is crucial.

Nuclear war is more imminent than ever since the end of the Cold War, and unless the Biden administration changes course, it can become a real possibility.

As a nation, we are NOT prepared. But YOU can take steps NOW to give you and your family the best chance of survival in a worst-case scenario.

As we do every week, my team sends my email subscribers the exclusive documents behind the Glenn TV special. This week includes practical steps to prepare for nuclear war.

It is vitally important that you have this knowledge. You can enter your email here to get access.

I also wanted to pause and recognize the gravity of the situation.

Many of us remember the looming fear of a nuclear attack.

One of my researchers came to me while working on this particular episode and told me that the weight and fragility of the topic left him feeling helpless, frustrated, and numb.

Many of us remember the looming fear of a nuclear attack while growing up during the Cold War. Now that this fear has returned, it is natural to be overcome by emotion. If you were born after the Cold War, this is likely a fresh new fear that you have no context for.

If either of these feelings resonated with you, you are not alone. I'd like you to read what my researcher shared with me:

On the way into the soundstage yesterday I made the remark to Glenn that we have to research a lot of very depressing subjects in putting together his Wednesday Night Special each week. He laughed because he knows it’s true (and because he comes up with most of these depressing subjects). But, I told him, working on this week’s episode was the most depressed about a subject I’ve been in a long time. Digging into the history of the nuclear arms race and the current nuclear threat was relentlessly disturbing and bleak. The daily headlines about Russia, China, and North Korea just piled onto the misery.

Working on Glenn’s Wednesday Night Special, we’ll often be saturated in a subject for a week and a half, sometimes longer. Doing constant deep dives on the world’s evils, you become numb to it all to a certain extent. But this week’s episode really shook me out of the numbness.

As a child of the 1980s, I have strong memories of being terrified of nuclear war with the Soviet Union. But those fears mostly faded away over the next twenty-five years as communism largely crumbled in Eastern Europe and Russia. We lost our sense of urgency and alarm over nuclear weapons. It was a harsh wake up call to be reminded of the horrific reality that nuclear war would entail. It also didn’t help that I re-watched the 1983 TV movie “The Day After” (which Glenn talks about in this week’s episode).

We always strive to produce important, relevant episodes, but this week’s has a particular urgency as the U.S. deepens its commitment to Ukraine in their war with Russia. The world has changed – we no longer have just one nuclear foe. We desperately need a potent reminder that the world sits on a tinderbox of nearly 13,000 nuclear warheads. And we have cartoonish villains like Kim Jong-un who apparently like to play with matches.

After seeing this week’s episode, some younger members of Glenn’s staff remarked that they didn’t know about “nuclear winter” or the terrifying details about nuclear war and its consequences. It’s not something that’s fun to think about. But it’s vital to think about. We must renew the conclusion reached by Reagan and Gorbachev at their 1985 summit: “…a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”

I don't want to create the same type of feelings and paranoia I had growing up during the Cold War, but I do want us to be aware that this is a real possibility that we can prepare for, even if our government isn't. Even though it often feels like there is so little that we can control on the national stage, there is so much you CAN do to protect and prepare you and your family.

SIX things you MUST know to survive a nuclear attack

GraphicaArtis / Contributor | Getty Images

Do you know what to do in the event of a nuclear bomb? If you were in school anytime before 1989, you probably do. Preparing for nuclear bombs was a routine drill in schools and workplaces during the Cold War. However, most people born after the Cold War have never been taught what to do before, during, and immediately after a nuclear explosion.

As nuclear war feels more imminent now than at any other point since the Cold War, it is vital that we know what to do in the case of a nuclear event. As Glenn discussed last night on his Glenn TV special, here are 5 things you MUST know in case of a nuclear explosion. To get the full research that went into the Glenn TV special about nuclear preparation, click here.

1. Get inside as soon as possible, preferably underground.

As soon as you can, get inside your house or a building, preferably something brick or concrete. The main objective is to avoid "nuclear fallout," which are tiny radioactive particles and dust that result from the initial blast with the potential of causing lethal radiation poisoning.

Stay as far away as possible from windows, outer walls, and the roof. If you have access to a basement, that’s even better. Underground is always going to be better.

If you don't have a basement, get to the center of the building or house, like a stairwell.

2. Stay inside for at least 24 hours, preferably longer.

Nuclear fallout's radiation levels drops to 1 percent of its initial radiation levels after two weeks, so it would be ideal to remain inside for that duration.

3. If you CAN'T make it inside, here's what to do:

Take cover behind something, lay flat on the ground, and cover your head. It could take up to thirty seconds for the blast wave to reach you.

Cover your mouth with some kind of cloth material.

As soon as you can get indoors, remove your clothes and seal them off in a plastic bag. Put the bag as far away from people as possible.

Removing your clothes can reduce your fallout contamination by up to 90 percent. Blow your nose and wash out your ears, in case there is any contaminated dirt particles It’s best to take a shower with plenty of soap and shampoo—no conditioner as it can bind radioactive particles to your scalp.

4. What you CAN and CANNOT eat and drink.

It’s okay to eat and drink anything that’s in a sealed container, package, bottle, or can. You can eat food from your pantry and refrigerator. However, any food left uncovered, even inside your house, and especially anything from an outdoor garden, is not safe.

You cannot boil water to get rid of radiation. But you CAN use tap water to wash dishes and take showers. Even if the public water supply is contaminated from fallout, the water dilutes the radiation enough to keep it from being harmful.

5. Do NOT scratch your skin.

Don't scratch your skin – if you do have scrapes, try to cover them. Scratches enable radioactive material to enter your bloodstream.

6. Battery-powered technology is essential.

Following the initial blast, there will be an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) explosion, which will render all electrically-powered essentially useless—goodbye smart phones! Battery or crank-powered radios will be essential to keep tabs on the "outside world."

To get the full research that went into the Glenn TV special about nuclear preparation, click here.

THE DOCUMENTS for the 'How to Prepare for Nuclear War' Glenn TV special

RomoloTavani | Getty Images

Are we prepared for nuclear war?

We need a wake-up call about the reality of nuclear war and why it must NEVER happen.

In his latest Glenn TV special, Glenn took viewers through how the nuclear arms race developed between the U.S. and Russia. He also explores the current nuclear threats, what nuclear war would actually entail, and the unthinkable consequences that would result.

Glenn's newsletter subscribers get exclusive access to the research that went into the episode.

Do your own homework

Not already signed up for Glenn's newsletter or missed the one with the documents? No problem. Sign up below we'll email you a PDF of the documents connected to this special, so you can download it directly to your device.

Watch the full special below (or watch on BlazeTV here):

Why is World War III trending on Twitter? 3 reasons why another World War is possible.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Feng Li / Staff, LUDOVIC MARIN / Contributor | Getty Images

World War III is trending on Twitter as Biden tours Ukraine and Poland on the one-year anniversary of the start of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The threat of a third world war is more imminent than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and the American people are feeling it. Glenn has long warned that Biden's foreign policy and the U.S.'s continued aid to Ukraine is "marching towards war." Now, we are at a breaking point.

Here are three reasons why a third world war is a very real possibility unless the Biden administration changes course.

1. We have become a proxy Ukrainian government.

During his speech in Kyiv, Biden announced yet another aid package to Ukraine. What will this money be used for? Biden himself admits that U.S. aid is now being used beyond military initiatives for basic government-funded programs, like pensions and "social support:"

The aid will deliver "much-needed humanitarian assistance, as well as food, water, medicine, and shelter, and other aids to Ukrainians displaced by Russia's war, and provide aid for those seeking refuge in other countries from Ukraine. It's also going to help schools and hospitals open. It's going to allow pensions and social support to be paid to the Ukrainian people, so they have something in their pocket. It also will provide critical resources to address food shortages around the globe."

Pensions? Social Support? Schools? Hospitals? Are we becoming the Ukrainian government? Monetarily speaking: yes. While our government debates our dwindling social security funds, they are sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund Ukrainians' pensions.

We are the proxy Ukrainian government.

Consider this. The U.K. recently released a report estimating that Russia has deployed 97 percent of its military to Ukraine with its resources depleting and its economy tanking. What if China were to not only send billions of dollars in aid packages to Russia along with tanks, missile defense systems, and short-range missiles, but moreover, to fund Kremlin pensions, Russian schools and hospitals, and various social programs? Would we not consider China an active participant in the war? Why would we expect Russia to view us any differently?

They don't.

In December 2022, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the expansion of Western weapon supplies to Ukraine has led to “an aggravation of the conflict.” In October, Russian ambassador in Washington called the United States' plan to send additional aid to Ukraine an "immediate threat" and cemented "Washington's status as a participant in the conflict." Glenn hit the nail on the head: "Not only are we sending over tanks, missiles, bullets, guns, we're now paying for their Social Security. I mean, we are the Ukrainian government."

2. We are sending offensive weapons to Ukraine.

If sending trillions of dollars in aid to Ukraine didn't cement our active role in the war with Russia, our escalation in offensive weapon packages certainly did. The U.S. escalated its weapons packages to Ukraine from defensive weapons to lethal offensive artillery, including Abrams tanks. Germany followed suit with sending a fleet of elite Leopard tanks to Kyiv. These are not defensive weapons—these are offensive weapons intended for use on enemy soil.

And Russia knows this.

Russia says the U.S.'s decision to send tanks to Ukraine is a "direct involvement in the conflict" and called the German government’s decision to send tanks to Ukraine “extremely dangerous” and “takes the conflict to a new level of confrontation.” Moreover, the embassy said it is convinced that Germany and its closest allies were “not interested in a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis” but were “set up for its permanent escalation and unlimited pumping of the Kyiv regime with more and more deadly weapons.”

Where will we draw the line?

Russia says the U.S.'s decision to send tanks is a "direct involvement in the conflict."

The U.K. wants to push the line even further, opening up the possibility of sending fighter jets to Ukraine as Kyiv pleads with the U.S. for F-35 stealth fighter jets. Russia warned that supplying cutting-edge fighter jets would be "on London's conscience" because of the "bloodshed, next round of escalation, and subsequent military and political ramifications for the European continent and the entire globe."

Are we willing to continue to poke the bear?

3. Russia is forging new military alliances with Western enemies.

Now that we have poked the bear, Russia is seeking new military alliances of its own, strengthening a new anti-Western alliance. Iran is building military drones for Russia's front in Ukraine. Belarus is welcoming Russian troops along its northern border with Ukraine. According to U.S. intelligence, Russia is importing illegal weapons from North Korea. Most recently, China's top diplomat Wang Yi solidified ties with Russia and is contemplating sending military aid during his recent visit to Moscow.

We have poked the bear.

Secretary of State Anthony Blinken warned against China "providing lethal support to Russia in the war against Ukraine." If we expect to continue to supply Ukraine with "lethal support" without any consequences from Russia, why would we expect China to do anything differently? As Glenn said, "after we're sending all this [aid], we actually think we have the right to tell China, 'Don't send any military aid to Russia.' Who the hell do we think we are?"

The escalation in weapons supplies on both sides of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is pulling the world in one of two alliances, the pro-Western NATO alliance and the anti-West Russian coalition. Does this ring any bells?

Will we ever learn from history?

As Glenn recently said, "We are repeating, to the letter, World War I." What the Allied and Central powers were during the early 1900s is what NATO and Russia's anti-western coalition is becoming today. World War I was the final result of the cascade of conflicts and alliance obligations that stemmed from one single event—the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. What will be the first domino to start the cascade that pulls NATO into a war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea? A stray missile that hits Poland? American tanks treading into Russian territory? Is this fragile house of cards really in the best interest of the American people?

As Glenn said, we're "not saying China and Russia are the on right side." We can condemn their actions without fueling the fire that could bring the whole world into a new world war. We have to learn from our history, hold our leaders accountable, and demand that our government prioritize the interests and safety of the American people.

Glenn's Show Prep