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

Glenn: Net neutrality is "the global warming of the Internet"

November 12, 2014
Wilson

Writer

There’s a big push right now to get the government to regulate the internet in order to preserve “net neutrality” among various internet providers. The internet is one of the few truly free remaining places on the planet today. Does the internet really need the government to regulate it? Glenn explains why the push for Net Neutrality matters.

WATCH:

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Glenn: Let me tell you about net neutrality. Net neutrality is a -- is the global warming of the Internet. They are saying that they need to level the playing field of the Internet and make it free. Let me tell you something. If it wasn't for the freedom of the Internet, this world and this country would be screwed right now. The only real growth that we have in the world, and you're seeing it in television and news and information. The only place you're truly free to say whatever you want, to produce whatever you want, to get it out -- man has never had a voice like he has right now. And it's all due to the Internet. And due to the fact that the government is not involved in it at all. It's working pretty well. Do I dislike buffering speeds? Yes. Am I company that should be on the other side? Probably. And here's why. These giant corporations like Comcast and Google and all these other companies, all they have to do if they want to shut people like me down is they choke down my -- my speeds. They choke down. If you -- because I'm a video provider, if they want to put me out of business, they just choke down and make it impossible to watch. Last night I was at home. I was trying to watch something -- I was trying to watch studio C with the kids and we watch it online. We just don't watch TV anymore. And I was watching online and I was on Roku and the speed was really low yesterday for some reason. It just kept stopping and starting and then stopping and then starting and buffering. Ask enough, I'm not going to watch it tonight. We did something else. That's exactly how these giant Internet providers can put people like me out of business. I don't want to go out of business. So shouldn't I saying, yes, government, because I'm somebody who's going to be targeted. I know it. Shouldn't -- shouldn't I saying, yes, government, please protect me. Oh, protect me? No. Because the government is only going to protect those who are playing ball with the government. And trust me, here is why Internet neutrality is happening. Twofold. One, political reasons. What was it that the diversity czar at the FCC said about the important revolution in Venezuela? As soon as -- as soon as Castro -- not Castro.

PAT: Chavez.

GLENN: As soon as Chavez knew that he had control of the television and radio stations, that important revolution could happen. So that's why you have a socialist Marxist at the FCC But the radio and television is over as we know it. It's just over. It's all online. So how do they get their grubby hands into it? They got their grubby hands into it the first place because they said, oh, there's only so much band space. There's only so much band width. The frequencies, the air belongs to the people. And so that's how they got into broadcast. Now they're saying, well, there's only so much band width. There's only -- really? Because I remember -- there was only so much band width. It gets better and better and better. From 1G to 2G to 4G to 16G to 375G. It's coming. It will get better, cheaper, faster. Everyone will be able to do this. It is only a matter of time.

PAT: It's already done that in such a short time.

GLENN: Correct. So what are they panicking about? One, it's about control. But the more insidious one, and we just had a meeting about this this morning, because I've got -- a lot of people from New York and from all over the country, from TheBlaze, because we're having some intensive meetings this week here on the future of our company. And so this morning about 7:00, we had a meeting. And I explained the future of the company. And I explained the future of the world in communications. And the way that Facebook is talk radio and the telephone. And I want to you listen to this. The telephone used to be one-to-one communication. I could reach out anywhere and call someone and get them one to one. But it was a device and I had to go through AT&T and everything else. Then you had talk radio. And I could listen to other people's conversations and I could listen to what they were talking about, about the news and everything else, and I could join in on that conversation. If I could get them to pick up the phone, they could screen me and then I could be part of it. What Facebook is you have that private one-on-one conversation when you want it, but you also are allowed to go in and jump into anybody else's conversation as well. So it's both the telephone and talk radio. It's a utility. It's a public utility. Maybe we should have the government run Facebook. It's a public utility. Just like the phones are. Just like radio is. It's a public utility. Don't think they won't make that. And if you think that the government will make Facebook better, what, are you 4? Now, because Facebook and the Internet is going to change everything, and I have -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Pat and Stu, if I would have said that the guys who have been sitting in my office over the last three months would even accept an appointment from me two years ago, let alone take -- get on their private jets, fly to me, come to my place of business, wait for an appointment in our lobby, and then come and sit down on the couch in my office and say, okay, do you have any ideas? We need some help. Would you have believed --

STU: No.

GLENN: They wouldn't even would have taken a meeting with me if I would have called them two years ago.

STU: Right.

GLENN: That doesn't show how cool we are. That shows how desperate they are. Okay? Why are they desperate? These giant media moguls are desperate because they know. And they all say in private conversations, every single one of them say the same thing to me. Glenn, most of the people in my own company don't even get it. It's over. It's over. They don't understand the colossal change that has coming. I know. I know. So what do we do? Here's what the big companies are going to. The Comcasts of the world. And this will happen in every single -- this will happen in the accounting. This will happen in cab drivers, truck drivers. This will happen in -- with doctors and especially universities. All of them. All of them will go the government and say, you need to protect us. You need to protect us. You need to prop us up. You got to put a gate here. So who wants that gate on the Internet? I'll tell you who wants the gate on the Internet. Comcast wants a gate on the Internet. Anybody who is a provider -- and quite honestly, I will tell you the truth. Again, a gate on the Internet actually helps me if I want to go into television. Because it stabilizes things. The meeting that I had at 7:00 this morning was, can anybody tell me what the world looks like? In five years? In 10 years? Anybody? Nope.

We just know you're going to have entertainment and information. We don't know how you're going to get it. Most importantly, we don't have any idea how to make money off of it. Now, when we say make money off of it, we're trying to innovate so we're just trying to make money to pay the bills so we can better stuff. But there are those people -- they don't give a flying rat's butt about anything. They built their systems years ago.

STU: Does the rat's butt fly? Is that what happens?

PAT: Only the butt does. The rest of the rat does not.

GLENN: So nobody cares. They've built their systems long ago. Do you think NBC cares about, we got to get every dollar for innovation? No, we want every dollar because we want every dollar. We're making money. We paid for all this stuff. Don't let this stuff go away. What they're doing is they're going and they're asking for net neutrality to stop innovation, to be able to put the gates up. Because you know who I'm afraid of? You know who I'm afraid of? And I've said this to my own staff and my own company and all of the vice presidents will be hearing this from me over the next year. I don't want to hear -- I'm 50. I don't want to hear any of your 50-year-old ideas. I don't want to hear them. Can we get some 18-year-olds in here? I want to talk to some 20-year-olds. Really responsible 20-year-olds. Now, I want to hear the 50-year-old ideas. I want to hear your ideas on how to clear the bull crap out of their life. Clear the runway for them. Make sure legally everything is buttoned up. Make sure that we're holding everything together and we're treating people right and we're running a good, decent company with good moral sense. But I want you to clear the runway for the 20-year-olds because the 20-year-olds think differently. They don't even think like we do anymore. They see the future in a completely different way. Go ahead. You know what it is? It's like talking to you and me about race and then going and having a conversation with Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews. It's not -- nothing against them. They just are 20 years older than we are. They see the world differently. When I say, I don't see race, they can't even imagine that. They don't --

STU: It's all the same.

GLENN: That's all they see. And it's because they grew up in that 1960s world and they stopped thinking. They -- they cast what the world is, and that's just what it is. You have to stop doing that. That's when you get old and die, is when you just cast the world and say, this is what it is. The world is going to change. And that's why the 20-somethings, they see things completely differently. You talk to them about race, they really think it's crazy. Talk about politics to 20-somethings? What? Why? Why would I do that? Why? That doesn't even make any sense. They don't have any restrictions, just like the Internet. It has no limitations. It used to be, you know, I just got this -- this is D-magazine. They brought this in and this is an article on me, the new Glenn Beck. And I -- I opened it up and I put it down and I looked at Pat and I said, you know what, Pat? Do you remember when being in a magazine used to mean something? It used to mean something. Why? Now that same article is online, but it doesn't mean as much. Why? Two reasons. One, it's not tangible. Okay. It's not something you pick up. You have to go find on a store shelf someplace. So it's someplace third party. Look at that. It's right there and it's at the checkout stand and it's a big deal. And it's tangible. And there are what, 300 pages in this magazine. Limited space. Do you know why articles and shows and everything else don't matter? Because it's unlimited. I can watch every episode of the "Twilight Zone," followed by every episode of "Seinfeld," followed by every episode of "Continuum," and then I can watch the old Sherlock Holmes, the brand-new BBC Sherlock Holmes, and I can do it all in a day and I haven't spent any money. All do I, I'm going to download it. It's unlimited. So that devalues everything. And that's what got everybody freaked out. They want control and they want their money. Don't listen to anyone who says net neutrality is a good thing. I have everything to gain by standing with the people who want net neutrality. I'm telling you, it's bad for you.

PAT: And the one question I would ask these people and the president among the rest is why? Why are you doing this? Because he keeps saying, he wants it free and accessible. It already is. It can't get any more free and it can't get any more accessible than it is -- it's like saying that I want chocolate to remain delicious and accessible. It already is. Why are you going to change it? It's like saying, I want the interstate freeway system to remain accessible to all. Well, it's already -- who's telling me what lanes I can get on? Who's telling me unless there's an HOV lane. Unless --

GLENN: Unless the government says --

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I want --

(overlapping speakers).

PAT: A problem now so don't create one. That's what they're trying to do. They're trying to create a problem.

GLENN: And -- I want to take this one a step further. The buffering ad that they ran where they put the phony buffering in.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: That goes right back to the other guy who's talking about health care. The people are stupid.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They're lying to you again and listen to what they were saying about how stupid you were on health care. Don't be stupid again. Don't do it.

3 BIGGEST lies about Trump's plans for deportations

Rebecca Noble / Stringer | Getty Images

To the right, Trump's deportation plans seem like a reasonable step to secure the border. For the left, mass deportation represents an existential threat to democracy.

However, the left's main arguments against Trump's deportation plans are not only based on racially problematic lies and fabrications — they are outright hypocritical.

Here are the three BIGGEST lies about Trump's deportation plans:

1. Past Deportations

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The left acts like Donald Trump is the first president in history to oversee mass deportations, but nothing could be further from the truth. Deportations have been a crucial tool for enforcing immigration laws and securing the country from the beginning, and until recently, it was a fairly bipartisan issue.

Democrat superstar President Obama holds the record for most deportations during his tenure in office, clocking in at a whopping 3,066,457 people over his eight years in office. This compares to the 551,449 people removed during Trump's first term. Obama isn't an anomaly either, President Clinton deported 865,646 people during his eight years, still toping Trump's numbers by a considerable margin.

The left's sudden aversion to deportations is clearly reactionary propaganda aimed at villainizing Trump.

2. Exploitative Labor

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

Commentators on the left have insinuated that President Trump's deportation plan would endanger the agricultural industry due to the large portion of agricultural workers in the U.S. who are illegal aliens. If they are deported, food prices will skyrocket.

What the left is conveniently forgetting is the reason why many businesses choose to hire illegal immigrants (here's a hint: it's not because legal Americans aren't willing to do the work). It's because it is way easier to exploit people who are here illegally. Farmowners don't have to pay taxes on illegal aliens, pay minimum wage, offer benefits, sign contracts, or do any of the other typical requirements that protect the rights of the worker.

The left has shown their hand. This was never about some high-minded ideals of "diversity" and "inclusion." It's about cheap, expendable labor and a captive voter base to bolster their party in elections.

3."Undesirable" Jobs

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Another common talking point amid the left-wing anti-Trump hysteria is that illegal aliens take "undesirable" jobs that Americans will not do. The argument is that these people fill the "bottom tier" in the U.S. economy, jobs they consider "unfit" for American citizens.

By their logic, we should allow hordes of undocumented, unvetted immigrants into the country so they can work the jobs that the out-of-touch liberal talking heads consider beneath them. It's no wonder why they lost the election.

Did the Left lay the foundations for election denial?

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Did Glenn predict the future?

Just a few days after the election and President Trump's historic victory, the New York Times published a noteworthy article titled "How Russia Openly Escalated Its Election Interference Efforts," in which they made some interesting suggestions. They brought up several examples of Russian election interference (stop me if you think you've heard this one before) that favored Trump. From there, they delicately approached the "election denial zone" with the following statement:

"What impact Russia’s information campaign had on the outcome of this year’s race, if any, remains uncertain"

Is anyone else getting 2016 flashbacks?

It doesn't end there. About two weeks before the election (October 23rd), Glenn and Justin Haskins, the co-author of Glenn's new book, Propaganda Wars, discuss a frightening pattern they were observing in the news cycle at the time, and it bears a striking similarity to this New York Times piece. To gain a full appreciation of this situation, let's go back to two weeks before the election when Glenn and Justin laid out this scene:

Bad Eggs in the Intelligence Community

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

This story begins with a top-secret military intelligence leak. Over the October 19th weekend, someone within the U.S. Government's intelligence agencies leaked classified information regarding the Israeli military and their upcoming plans to Iran. The man responsible for this leak, Asif William Rahman, a CIA official with top security clearance, was arrested on Tuesday, November 12th.

Rahman is one of the known "bad eggs" within our intelligence community. Glenn and Justin highlighted another, a man named Robert Malley. Malley is an Iranian envoy who works at the State Department under the Biden/Harris administration and is under investigation by the FBI for mishandling classified information. While Malley was quietly placed on leave in June, he has yet to be fired and still holds security clearance.

Another suspicious figure is Ariane Tabatabai, a former aide of Mr. Malley and a confirmed Iranian agent. According to a leak by Semafor, Tabatabai was revealed to be a willing participant in an Iranian covert influence campaign run by Tehran's Foreign Ministry. Despite this shocking revelation that an Iranian agent was in the Pentagon with access to top-secret information, Tabatabai has not faced any charges or inquires, nor has she been stripped of her job or clearance.

If these are the bad actors we know about, imagine how many are unknown to the public or are flying under the radar. In short, our intelligence agencies are full of people whose goals do not align with American security.

Conspicuous Russian Misinformation

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The story continues with a video of a man accusing former VP candidate and Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz of sexual assault. The man alleged to be Matthew Metro, a former student of Walz claimed that he was assaulted by the Governor while in High School. The man in the video gave corroborating details that made the claim seem credible on the surface, and it quickly spread across the internet. But after some deeper investigation, it was revealed this man wasnot Matthew Metro and that the entire video was fake. This caught the attention of the Security Director of National Intelligence who claimed the video was a Russian hoax designed to wound the Harris/Walz campaign, and the rest of the intelligence community quickly agreed.

In the same vein, the State Department put out a $10 million bountyto find the identity of the head of the Russian-owned media company Rybar. According to the State Department, Rybar manages several social media channels that promote Russian governmental political interests targeted at Trump supporters. The content Rybar posts is directed into pro-Trump, and pro-Republican channels, and the content apparently has a pro-Trump spin, alongside its pro-Russia objectives.

Why Does the Intelligence Community Care?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

So what's the deal? Yes, Russia was trying to interfere with the election, but this is a well-known issue that has unfortunately become commonplace in our recent elections.

The real concern is the intelligence community's uncharacteristically enthusiastic and fast response. Where was this response in 2016, when Hillary Clinton and the Democrats spent months lying about Donald Trump's "collusion" with Russia? It has since been proven that the FIB knew the entire story was a Clinton campaign fabrication, and they not only kept quiet about it, but they even played along. Or what about in 2020 when the Left tried to shut down the Hunter Biden laptop story for months by calling it a Russian hoax, only for it to turn out to be true?

Between all the bad actors in the intelligence community and their demonstrated repeated trustworthiness, this sudden concern with "Russian disinformation" that happened to support Trump was just too convenient.

Laying the Foundations for Election Denial

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

This is when Glenn and Justin make a startling prediction: the Left was preparing for a potential Trump victory (remember, this was two weeks before the election) so they would have something to delegitimize him with. They were painting Trump as Putin's lapdog who was receiving election assistance in the form of misinformation from the Kremlin by sounding the alarm on these cherry-picked (and in the grand scheme of things, tame) examples of Russian propaganda. They were laying the foundation of the Left's effort to resist and delegitimize a President-elect Trump.

Glenn and Justin had no idea how right they were.

Trump's POWERFUL 10-point plan to TEAR DOWN the Deep State

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Since 2016 President Trump has promised to drain the swamp, but with Trump's new ten-point plan, do we finally have a solid roadmap to dismantle the deep state?

In March 2023, President Trump released a video detailing his plan to shatter the deep state. Now that he is the President-Elect, this plan is slated to launch in January 2025. Recently, Glenn reviewed Trump's plan and was optimistic about what he saw. In fact, he couldn't see how anyone could be against it (not that anything will stop the mainstream media from spinning it in a negative light).

But don't let Glenn tell you what to think! Check out Trump's FULL plan below:

1. Remove rouge bureaucrats

U.S. Air Force / Handout | Getty Images

Trump's first order of business will be to restore an executive order he issued in 2020 that allowed him to remove rouge bureaucrats. Trump promises to use this power aggressively eliminate corruption.

2. Clean and overhaul the intelligence apparatus

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Next, Trump promises to oust corrupt individuals from the national intelligence apparatus. This includes federal bureaucracies like the CIA, NSA, and other agencies that have been weaponized against the left's political opponents.

3. Reform FISA courts 

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

Trump's next promise is to reform the FISA courts, which are courts tasked with reviewing and approving requests to gather foreign intelligence, typically through surveillance. These courts have been unaccountable to protections like the 4th Amendment that prohibits the government from unwarranted surveillance, resulting in severe government overreach on American citizens, both on US soil and abroad.

4. Expose the deep state. 

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Trump want to establish a "Truth and Reconciliation" commission that will be tasked with unmasking the deep state. This will be accomplished by publishing and declassifying all documents on deep state spying, corruption, and censorship.

5. Crackdown on government-media collusion

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Next, Trump will crack down on government "leakers" who collaborate with the mainstream media to spread misinformation. These collaborators purposefully interject false narratives that derail the democratic process within the country. The plan will also prohibit government actors from pressuring social media to censor content that goes against a particular political narrative, as was done, for example, in the case of the Biden administration pressuring Facebook to crack down on Hunter Biden laptop-related content.

6. Isolate inspector generals

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump promises to physically separate every inspector general from the department they are tasked with overseeing. This way, they don't become entangled with the department and end up protecting them instead of scrutinizing them.

7. Create a system to monitor the intelligence agencies

SAUL LOEB / Stringer | Getty Images

To ensure that the intelligence agencies are no longer spying on American citizens, Trump proposed to create an independent auditing system. This auditing system, created by Congress, would keep the intelligence agencies in check from spying on American citizens or political campaigns as they did on Trump's campaign.

8. Relocate the federal bureaucracy

SAUL LOEB / Staff | Getty Images

Relocating the federal bureaucracy, Trump argues, will keep the internal politics of the individual bureaucracies out of the influence of DC. He says he will begin by relocating the Bureau of Land Management to Colorado.

9. Ban federal bureaucrats from taking corporate jobs

J. David Ake / Contributor | Getty Images

To keep money ties out of politics, Trump proposes that federal bureaucrats should be banned from working at the companies that they are regulating. American taxpayer dollars should not go to agencies run by bureaucrats who cut special deals for corporations, who will later offer them a cushy role and a huge paycheck.

10. Push for congressional term limits

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Finally, Trump wants to make a constitutional amendment placing term limits on members of Congress. This proposal has been popular on both sides of the political aisle for a while, preventing members of Congress from becoming swamp creatures like Nancy Pelosi who was just re-elected for her 19th term.

The Democrats are turning on Biden

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

The election is over, Kamala Harris has officially conceded, and now the Democrats are doing some serious soul-searching.

After reflecting long and hard (approximately 24 hours), the Democrats have discovered the real reason Harris lost the election. Was it Trump's excellent campaign that resonated with voters? Was it Harris's off-putting personality? Or was it her failure to distinguish herself from the Biden administration's failed policies?

No, it was Joe Biden. All the blame lies on President Biden's shoulders. The Left sees no need to take any real responsibility for the landslide defeat the Democrats suffered earlier this week; just pass the blame on to 'ole Joe.

Here are the leading excuses the Left is spinning up to explain Harris's crushing defeat:

"Biden should have dropped out sooner."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is the crux of the left-wing media's argument against Biden. They claim that if Joe Biden had dropped out earlier, Harris would have had more time to campaign and would not have had to carry around the baggage of Biden's abysmal debate performance. This could make sense, but what these commentators are conveniently forgetting are the years of propaganda these very same people promoted arguing that Biden's declining mental acuity was nothing more than a right-wing conspiracy theory. If Biden had been as sharp as they had told us, why would he have dropped out?

Also, if a lack of time was Harris's biggest issue this election, she sure didn't act like it. She was practically in hiding for the first several weeks of her campaign and she took plenty of days off, including during the last few crucial weeks. More time wouldn't have helped her case.

"Harris failed to distance herself from Biden."

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

This is media gaslighting at its finest. Yes, Harris failed to distance herself from Biden. However, that's because she, along with the rest of the Left, publically went on record defending Biden's policies and his mental acuity. By the time Harris became the nominee, she had already said too much in favor of Biden. Don't forget Harris's infamous “There is not a thing that comes to mind,” quote after being asked on The View if she would do anything differently than Biden. In a way, Harris couldn't separate herself from Biden without drawing attention to the greatest flaw in her campaign: if she knew how to fix the country, why hasn't she?

"Harris did the best anyone could have done in that situation."

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

But did she really? As mentioned earlier, she was noticeably absent for much of the campaign. While Trump was busy jumping into interviews, events, and rallies non-stop, Harris was MIA. Whenever Harris did manage to make an appearance, it almost always did more harm than good by highlighting her lack of a robust policy platform and her inability to string together a coherent sentence. Notable examples include her aforementioned appearance on The View and her disastrous interview on Fox News with Bret Baier. The point is, even considering the limited time to campaign she had, Kamala Harris wasnot the best person for the job and there are undoubtedly many other Democrats who would have run a much more successful campaign.