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

Israel's Deputy Speaker of the Knesset calls into radio

September 11, 2012
Wilson

Writer

On the radio show this morning, Glenn spoke with Danny Danon, Deputy Speaker for the Knesset in Israel, about a wide range of topics including Iran's nuclear program, the Obama administration, and his new book Israel: The Will to Prevail.

Read the transcript of the interview below:

GLENN: Danny Danon, he is the deputy speaker of the Knesset and author of a brand‑new book that everybody should read called Israel: The Will to Prevail. The biggest problem we have in America is our will, do we have the will to do what we have to do to be able to survive and then thrive. The same question is being asked of Israel, and I will tell you, knowing the Israeli people, well, with the exception of a lot of people in Tel Aviv, knowing a lot of the Israelis, there is a will to survive, and they will.

Danny Danon is here with us now. Hi, Danny, how are you, sir?

DANON: Hi, Glenn, it's a pleasure to be on your show.

GLENN: Tell me the situation. Here we sit on September 11th, the eleventh anniversary. You probably have noticed but are probably polite enough not to point out that people in America are just kind of back to normal and we're not ‑‑ it's not like when you have a very important date in Israel where the city and the population stops to reflect. We've forgotten and now we're really not taking this threat from Iran seriously at all anymore.

DANON: Glenn, it is amazing. I meet a lot of people who tell me why should we bother about Israel? Why should we bother about the Middle East? It is not happening in our backyard. That is a mistake because if you ignore what's happening today in Israel, it will come to the shores of the United States of America. It happened eleven years ago and it will happen again. We are being attacked not because we conquered the land or we occupy the settlement. We are being attacked because of the values, because we are different. And just listen to their opinion. They say we will go after the Saturday people, the Jews, but they will go after the Sunday people, the Christians in the United States. So I think you better wake up because I think in Israel we woke up already, but over here, as you said, people are ignoring the reality.

GLENN: So why do you suppose it is? And people in your own country and Jews here in America shock me because they're different than Israelis. They don't take this, the threat, seriously about Iran, and most Americans don't. Why, why do you suppose that is?

DANON: I think that people look at the map and say, "Wow, it is so far away, why should I bother." But today with the globalization. Also the terrorists use technology. And you look at the connection and the deep relationship between Venezuela and Iran and Hezbollah. And you know, Glenn, what they have in common, all of them? And I'm writing a book about the weekly flies that fly every week from Iran to Venezuela in order to transfer (inaudible). They have in common the hatred to the USA, the hatred to Israel. And I think that you would continue to do so. So it is not so simple, if you're not somewhere far away, it can be here in South America and it can come to the shores of the United States.

GLENN: You invited me to speak at the Knesset which was one of the bigger honors of my life.

DANON: You have to come again, Glenn. It was amazing.

GLENN: Well, if President Obama wins, I will be there probably by the end of the year. And I might bring my bags with me.

STU: (Laughing.)

GLENN: But it was a great honor to speak and to stand with you and so many others, but I know you got a lot of heat for that. I'm not as popular over there even as I am here.

DANON: Well, I think that the majority support you and support people like you who stand with Israel, pray for Israel, but sometimes few elements in the media, especially the liberal part of media, do not like to fear support to Israel. They like to put fear in the heart of the Israelis telling us, "If you will not make a confession today, if you will not divide Jerusalem tomorrow, it will be horrible." I remember last year before the UN convention, people from the left told me, "If you will not build up a (inaudible) before September 2011, it will be a point of no return" and look what happened. Nothing happened. So we are not afraid, and I can tell that people love you and I think you should come again, no matter what will be the result in the upcoming elections because we need people like you who stand with Israel. And I know that many people in Israel are not aware between the difference of the White House or Washington to the great America. Some people see that President Obama is not pro Israel or he's not supportive of the Israeli people. I know it is not the case with the majority of the Americans who do support us.

GLENN: That's one thing that I wanted to talk to you about is the fact, I've seen a change in many Americans and Christians per se. They're not ‑‑ they're standing with Israel and the Israelis and the Jewish people not because they want to baptize or anything else. I mean, don't get me wrong. There are people that, you know, are like, "Hey, you'll come to Jesus." But mainly I am seeing people who are standing there because they know it's right. And there is a chance that at least in this country, there are millions of people that recognize the point in history that we're at and will stand with you. It has to be extraordinarily frustrating to see, do you ‑‑ let me ask you this way: Do you think it was a mistake or an oversight that President Obama and the Democratic National Committee left Jerusalem out and said, "Hey, we don't ‑‑ we can't really find the capital of Israel. We're not really sure where it is"?

DANON: Definitely it was an embarrassing moment for everybody and we felt awkward watching it at the center. And I have been to conventions but I haven't seen such a miserable act regarding Jerusalem and God. But I have to tell you what. I have many friends about Democrats, congressmen, senators. I think the main issue is the policy of President Obama. And you don't need to look at the platform. Look at the policy in the last three and a half years. He told us do not build in Jerusalem. Can you believe somebody who tell in the U.S. to Hispanics or to African‑Americans you are not allowed to build in this city or in this state? It is unbelievable. But President Obama said it very clearly: Jews should not build in certain parts of Jerusalem, the only capital. So no matter what will be the decision in any convention, Jerusalem will be the capital of the Jewish people. And I do feel that we ‑‑ it is so important for you to speak up because you support us, and people like yourself unconditionally. You don't tell. You ask. You will support Israel but you have to do 1, 2, and 3, or you have to divide the land. You support us no conditions and that is true love.

GLENN: Well, I mean, it's your business. It's your country, it's your business. I support you and your right to defend yourself. That doesn't mean I'm going to say, "Hey, we've all got to get troops on the ground," you know, because we are ‑‑ we've spent ourself into oblivion and we've spread ourselves so thin that, you know, we just can't be all over the world like we were. But I completely support your right to stand up for yourself.

How do you feel ‑‑ or do you have any comments on the United States just sending over a billion dollars now for the new Islamic regime in Egypt to purchase German U‑boats?

DANON: You know, you look at that and you do not believe it. You give billions of U.S. dollars to the UN, Ahmadinejad on a yearly base and now you fund the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. And it's not only money. It's the technology, weapons that eventually will be used against us. So I ask myself, aren't you thinking about what will happen in five years, ten years? The region is so dynamic, so fragile, and I think sometimes we cannot believe what's happening in terms of the mistakes. But sending troops, you know, the U.S. never sent troops to Israel. Only during the Gulf War there were a few patriotic people who operated the aircraft missiles. But never the U.S. had to send troops to Israel. We know how to defend ourselves, but we do need the moral support. We need the moral backing and that's what we expect from President Obama, to give us the moral backing.

GLENN: How do you feel, how do you feel about Mitt Romney's direction? Do you feel that there's support there for Israel?

DANON: I heard Governor Romney in Israel. I think he really means what he said about standing with Israel. And I think President Obama was unique because even in my book I compare President Obama not to President Bush. To President Clinton who was also a Democrat, where President Clinton tried to be a mediator and to mediate between us, Israelis, to the Palestinians. President Obama, he was a dictator. He tried to dictate our (inaudible) on us and he tried to bully our prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. And that's not the way to achieve real peace. That's not the way to treat your ally.

GLENN: I don't think anybody really bullies Benjamin Netanyahu, at least effectively. Is there any concern about how the American people will react if you guys strike without saying anything, if you guys strike before the election?

DANON: Also, you know, we are following the elections very carefully but the timeline of Iran is different. They don't care about elections, don't care about what will happen here in November, and we are very worried about that. But I think we show that we don't have to get permission from anyone. When we have the nuclear reactor in Iraq in the early Eighties, Israel was condemned by the UN, by the U.S., but eventually it was a good decision. It was for the benefit of the American people. So I think also this time if you will act, serve in the long run, it will be for the benefit of the American people.

GLENN: Danny Danon, he is the deputy speaker of the Knesset and the author of Israel: The Will to Prevail. Danny, we'll see you again and thank you so much. God ‑‑

DANON: We'll see you next year in Jerusalem.

GLENN: You got it. God bless. The capital of Israel, by the way.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison) 

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

The REAL questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Democrats don't want the American people to know who they are voting for. It has been well over a month since Biden dropped out of the presidential race and Kamala was hastily installed in his place. During that time, Kamala has not given a single interview.

The Democrats' intention is clear: they have spent the last month gaslighting the American left into believing that Kamala is their new "super-candidate." Now that they've taken the bait, they can allow Kamala to take a softball interview to combat accusations from the Right.

Kamala's first interview will be hosted by Dana Bash on CNN and is scheduled for 9:00 p.m. ET tonight. Kamala will be joined by her running mate, Tim Walz, for an unusual interview. Between the tag-team approach and the more-than-sympathetic interviewer, it's almost certain that this will not be a particularly substantial interview full of easy, soft-ball, questions.

The American people deserve to know who is on the ballot, and that means that they should be able to see how their candidates stand up against tough questions. Here are five questions that CNN should ask Kamala tonight:

Will she build a border wall?

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

After years of bashing Trump for his proposed border wall, Kamala has suddenly changed her mind. During the DNC, Kamala pledged to support a bill that included money for a border wall and other border security measures. This change seems like a knee-jerk response to recent criticisms made about her abysmal performance as the "border czar." The question is: how genuine is it?

What is her stance on the Israel-Hamas war?

BASHAR TALEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has been mushy on the issue of the Israel-Hamas war so far. She said that she would support Israel while simultaneously expressing sympathy for the Palestinians in Gaza. With mounting pro-Hamas support within the American left, just how far is Kamala willing to go?

How does she explain defending Biden against allegations that he was too old for office now that those allegations have proven true?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

For the last four years, Kamala and the entire mainstream media have vehemently defended President Biden's mental fitness, despite countless incidents that indicated otherwise. After Biden's senile performance at the June presidential debate, the truth couldn't be hidden any longer, and Kamala was quickly swapped into his place. Now that the cat's out of the bag, how does Kamala justify her lies to protect the incompetent president?

How does she plan on fixing the economy, and why hasn't she already done it?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Kamala has claimed that she could lower consumer prices starting on the first day of her administration, accompanied by other promises to fix the economy. So why the wait? If she knows how to fix the economy that is causing so many Americans to suffer, can't she do something right now as the Vice President? Why has the economy only gotten worse within her three-year tenure in the White House?

Why does she keep flipping on her policies? Where does it stop?

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

As mentioned above, Kamala has already changed her stance on a border wall, but it doesn't end there. During her 2019 presidential campaign, Kamala vowed to end fracking, a controversial method of drilling for oil, in the name of climate change. But now it seems her position has softened, with no mention of a fracking ban. Why does she keep changing her stance on these major policies? What other policies has she changed without any indication? Why has she so far failed to produce a clear campaign platform?