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

Why does Pat think Loretta Lynch could be more extreme than Eric Holder?

January 29, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Could Obama's nominee for Attorney General be more radical than Eric Holder? With this administration, Pat thinks anything could be possible. During her confirmation hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tried to nail down some questions about her stance on gay marriage which she managed to sidestep. But when questions came up about her stance on torture, she was unequivocal. Why one and not the other?

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

PAT: Yesterday there was a lot of -- a lot of discussion about the attorney general. The attorney general nominee. Loretta Lynch. At first I thought they had nominated Loretta Lynn, the country singer, but it turns out the coal miner's daughter wasn't up for that. She wasn't interested. Is she even alive?

STU: I don't know.

JEFFY: Yeah, she is.

PAT: I don't think she wanted the gig. They went with Loretta Lynch.

JEFFY: She is only in her 80s. Don't worry about it.

PAT: Loretta Lynn?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: She's spry compared to say Robert Byrd.

STU: Or compared to Jeff Fisher, whose birthday is here today at 109 years old.

PAT: Happy birthday, Jeffy. You don't look anything over 203, I'd say.

STU: Yeah. That's fair.

JEFFY: Thank you. I appreciate it.

[laughter]

PAT: All right. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin down Loretta Lynch, our attorney general nominee. This woman is at least as extreme, I think, as Eric Holder.

STU: That's possible.

PAT: Yeah. It's possible. And in this case, with the Bush -- with the Obama administration, it's likely. Because everybody -- everybody that comes into this administration is an extremist, it seems. Can you name a moderate that he's appointed to any position. I can't think of one.

STU: I think people would point to people like Chuck Hagel who was a Republican at one point.

PAT: Chuck Hagel, that's right.

STU: There's been a couple -- secretary of defense holdover. I don't know. Not many. Few and far between.

PAT: No. Not many at all. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin her down on the difference between -- okay, so the same-sex marriage thing is before the Supreme Court. So he was trying to get her to say, all right, is polygamy the next domino to fall because it would seem likely it is. Here's how that exchange went.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages bans are unconstitutional and violates the US Constitution for a state, try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that's clearly the law of the land, unless there's a constitutional amendment to change it.

What legal rationale would be in play that would prohibit polygamy? What's the legal difference between a state, a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional, but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the Constitution and the other not?

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I have not been involved in the argument or analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court. So -- and I'm not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point, but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.

PAT: Okay. So she wasn't involved in the argument or the analysis. All right. You know, they're going to say that every time they don't want to answer a question. But she wasn't involved in the argument or analysis. So then they asked her about waterboarding.

VOICE: Do you agree that waterboarding is torture and that it's illegal?

LYNCH: Waterboarding is torture, Senator.

VOICE: And thus illegal?

LYNCH: And thus illegal.

PAT: Wait. I don't think she was involved in the argument or analysis of that either, but she still had an answer somehow on that, that waterboarding is torture, and it is illegal. How can you say that definitively when you weren't involved in the argument or the analysis of that?

STU: I don't know.

PAT: That's kind of weird.

STU: Yeah. I was not involved in the argument or analysis of every episode of Law and Order, but I always have an opinion how it's coming out.

PAT: I don't know why Graham -- well, he sucks.

STU: You mean that he gave up on that?

PAT: Yeah. You don't give up on that. You just push her. Well, I know you were not involved in the argument or analysis, but you've stated an opinion on everything else. Why won't you answer this? The answer to that is, no, there should be no legal barrier to polygamy at the point where same sex becomes the law of the land. Why wouldn't polygamy? I don't understand that. As long as they're consenting adults, I don't understand it. Right?

Because that's the argument for all the other stuff. Why not this too?

STU: Yeah. I think there's a very strong argument to be made there. And, you know, the correct argument I think is, this is why you don't have the government getting involved in people's love life at all.

PAT: At al. Get them out of straight marriage, homosexual marriage. Everything.

STU: Yeah. Do you on your anniversary send a card to the place that gave you the marriage license. Do you make sure that they're a part of the ceremony with you? Do you make sure they're part of the ceremony, and every time we celebrate, do you take them out to dinner as well?

PAT: I have to say, I've been so inconsiderate. I have not done that.

STU: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. After all they've done for you.

PAT: Throughout my marriage, yeah.

STU: Which is nothing. They don't do anything for anyone.

PAT: Well, they gave us a piece of paper.

STU: To think of this, to allow you to express your love for your wife.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: They gave you -- of thing this as a conservative. We are allowing a system in which we say, okay, government, please give us a piece of paper so we can express who we love. Why don't why do we care about that at all?

PAT: We talked about that quite a few times over the last couple of years. Really it's the only position that makes sense. And glenn has articulated it many times. Get government out of all marriage. Let church handle it. It's a church institution anyway. And if you're an atheist, then go to city hall and do a justice of the peace, so what? Who cares.

STU: Yeah. And you don't have to worry about that if they're out of marriage. You can find someone else you like to do the ceremony for you.

PAT: Like a humanist person.

STU: Right. Weren't you and Glenn at one time ministers in a specific church that may or may not have had a physical location in Modesto, California, perhaps?

PAT: I believe we still are. There's not an expiration.

JEFFY: Once you are, you're still in good standing.

PAT: We can still marry people. And we have in the past.

STU: Yes. And you did it to married people. Think about that again. Okay, so you have to get another license, you have to be a licensed minister so that you can join a union between two licensed people who like each other so you can license their love. Conservatives are like, oh, this sounds great. Really?

PAT: It's been the wrong position from the beginning. We screwed up on that one at the beginning, just like we screwed up on the immigration thing. Should not have fought against illegal immigration. We should have fought for legal immigration. That should have been the battle cry the whole time. And get the government completely out of it.

The Libertarian stance on marriage is the right one. When I was in Salt Lake City a couple of weeks ago, doing the speech for the Eagle Forum and then afterwards, you know, there was a dinner and all that kind of stuff. And one of the local TV stations interviewed me. Their little reporterette came up to me. She wanted a few comments. So, okay.

And I knew it would probably be -- she wanted to do something that would try to trip me up and something she could beat us with. That was in the back of my mind. Sure enough, what was her big deal. The Supreme Court taking up same-sex marriage. And I said, you know, I'd like the government out of all marriage. Yeah, but how do you feel about this? How did this affect the conference when they heard about it? I don't think it affected the conference at all when they heard about it. They just mentioned it, and we kind of moved on and didn't dwell on it.

Well, what do you think about the same-sex marriage amendment.

I said, well, I don't think the government has any business in anybody's marriage. And I think that horse has probably left the barn. I think the Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of same-sex marriage. It will become the law of the land.

STU: You should have just said, I was not involved in the argument or analysis of that particular --

PAT: I should have. But that's the hot button issue that people try to trip you up on when they want to trip you up. And there's no tripping when it's just, get the government out of it. Don't make my church perform a same-sex marriage.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: But if you can find a church that will marry you, and you're a same sex couple, great. Do it. Then the government is completely out of it. But that's not where we are.

As far as the attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch, she was asked about illegal immigration.

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. Certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

PAT: Isn't that amazing? Here's the attorney general nominee, and she's saying, regardless of how got here, whether they're legal or illegal, I don't care what you're doing. If you've committed identity theft or if you're involved in tax fraud, you have a right to work in the United States of America.

That's the future attorney general?

JEFFY: I would like to see more citizens involved in the workforce in America.

PAT: I think the citizens would like to see that as well. I think the tens of millions who are unemployed would like to see the citizens of this nation be employed, rather than people of illegal status have the right to work. That's insanity.

This is the person who sworn to uphold -- not yet, but she will be. Sworn in to uphold our laws and she doesn't care about them. How do you vote to confirm her?

STU: I don't know. It seems that's what we do now. People get placed into office by somebody, and if they happen to dislike particular laws, they are not enforced. That is not -- I don't remember that with the founders. I don't remember George Washington harping on that particular way of doing business, but that does seem to be where we are. I mean, immigration is the number one thing. How can she be nominated if she had any other stance. The president of the United States has taken this as basically his main pathway of getting things done.

PAT: Yeah. It's inconceivable. And yet, I don't think we know what that word means because we keep using it. It just keeps happening.

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.