Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Why the deal President Obama made with Iran is the worst possible deal

July 15, 2015
Staff

WRITER

Everyone is heralding the Iran nuclear deal as “historic”, but it could end up being remembered as one of the most dangerous agreements brokered in recent history. As Pat and Stu pointed out on radio this morning, this deal guarantees that the sanctions restricting Iran from building a nuclear weapon will undoubtedly never return. In a few years, the country will be able to amass pretty most kinds of conventional weapons. In ten years, they’ll be able to have ballistic missiles. Could we see an arms race in the Middle East? Pat and Stu have the story and more reasons why this has endangered not only the Middle East but the world.

Listen to the story in the opening moments of today's podcast, and scroll down for a transcript of this segment:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors:

PAT: Pat and Stu in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 877-727-BECK. Glenn is recovering, resting his vocal cords as much as he can getting ready for his return August 3rd. Kind of when we're scheduled. So there will be plenty of time to get ready between that time when he returns and 8/28 with Birmingham. So everybody is talking about how we now have peace. Everybody in the Obama administration. We now have peace. This is something nobody else could do. We finally got done what these other idiots before us, the other 42 just couldn't manage to do. Peace with Iran. And it's going to be a lasting peace. There's no threat now of Iran building a nuclear weapon.

I mean, sure, they could buy -- they could buy conventional weapons from Russia now and use those on whoever they want at any time they want. And in a few years, they could also restart their nuclear program. But we've kicked that can down the road a little bit, so we're pretty excited about it.

STU: We sure have, Pat. And the idea that you would allow Iran to buy conventional weapons from Russia, pretty much guarantees the idea that the sanctions will never be reversed. Because we're talking about a half trillion of dollars pouring into the country in which they can spend a large portion of that -- first of all, it will go to sandals four needy children. That's number one, I know. Number two, pancake batter for Middle East pancakes. Defeat the hungry. There will be all sorts of delicious treats?

PAT: Falafels.

STU: They do have falafels. Once that's all taken care of, they do have a few dollars to purchase the weapons from Russia. So this is of course giving Russia and several other countries lots have motivation to keep these things -- the sanctions away in the future. So all of the sticks, as opposed to the carrots in this agreement, will never be in place because the other countries won't come along. We can sit here all we want and say, well, we have a -- we have a possibility -- there's so many -- there's a dead end everywhere they go, if they try to do anything outside of this agreement.

The other issue, as you bring up, Pat, even if they stay within the agreement, they are far more dangerous than they were yesterday. Far more dangerous. They're able to buy all sorts of conventional weapons. They're able to stockpile them. Even if we were to turn on the sanctions later on, we would be turning on sanctions to a much wealthier nation, a nation that is no longer at the brink because of the sanctions in the first place. They were able to recover. Even if we were to sanction them again, which we won't, then it would be a tougher job. It would be less effective. It really -- it is in many ways the worst of both worlds.

PAT: Yeah, the president was saying yesterday that this is an agreement not based in trust. We won't just trust them. This is based on verification.

In fact, representative Don Beyer, who is a Democrat from Virginia, he said on MSNBC yesterday that he would vote for the Iran deal because thanks to the Obama administration's negotiations, Iran's nuclear program will be under lock, key, and camera, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

STU: Wow, really?

PAT: Yep, except no. The eyes of the international community are on every centrifuge, every ounce of uranium in all of Iran's nuclear facilities, except for, again, no. It's completely false. UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren't immediate, and they aren't guaranteed.

STU: Yeah. The immediate is the fantastic part. If I ask for access to a site, they have 14 days to get back to me. Fourteen days. To say, hey, you know what --

PAT: Yeah. And it needs to be approved by a joint commission.

STU: Yeah. And if you can't come to an agreement, if I say, Pat, I want to come over at 3:00 a.m. next Tuesday, then you have 14 days to say -- well, in this particular case you have to be 14 days out. Fourteen days, and you say to me, no, I can't come to an agreement of what time. 3 o'clock just won't work for me. I'll be watching a marathon of Desperate Housewives. I say to you, okay, well, now we need to go to a commission. That commission is seven days they have to decide for the commission. So now we're at 21. Then you have three more days to reply after that. 24 days.

PAT: Twenty-four days.

STU: It's a joke!

PAT: Are you telling me that in the year 2015, a country can't move whatever it is they need to move away from the -- the place that's about to be inspected in 24 days? In almost a month to get rid of any evidence and then bring it right on back.

STU: The society has come up with not only nuclear technology, but also wheels.

PAT: I understand they now have wheels in Iran.

PAT: Yeah, and trucks. And they can theoretically drive those trucks somewhere else in the cover of night with one of 24 opportunities to get it somewhere else. Now, look, is there a -- theoretically, a giant centralized area that would be difficult to tear down and move around in 24 days? Sure. But there's a lot they can do. They can essentially do what they're doing, but they have to be more careful about it. And what do we get out of that? We get the opportunity to just make money flow into this country, up to, they think, a half trillion dollars will be the benefit for Iran here.

A half trillion dollars flows into this country. And what do we get out of it? The right to no longer sanction them.

PAT: And we didn't get our four people back. We didn't get our four Americans back. We just left them there.

STU: Sad.

PAT: I thought we didn't leave anybody behind. In fact, it seems like the administration said that when they made that massive exchange for what's-his-face?

STU: Bowe Bergdahl.

PAT: Yeah, the traitor. The deserter. And one of the excuses they used for sending five nasty murderers in exchange for one guy who deserted his unit was, well, yeah, this is America we don't leave anybody behind. Well, what are you talking about? You left four people behind to be killed in Benghazi. And you left these four Americans in Iran to be left behind.

STU: That's a throwaway in this negotiation. You know what, it's one of those things, where you walk in and you're about to sign the papers, and you say, oh, wait, obviously we get those four guys back, right? That's happening.

PAT: Obviously those four.

STU: I just don't see that in here. Can you just add that little addendum at the end?

It shouldn't even be a negotiating point.

PAT: Yeah. They can still proclaim this was a massive victory given to them by Allah. Go ahead. Don't mention you gave back these four. Who is going to know?

STU: That is a great point. I guess maybe it would come out in the American press. But they say everything in the American press is fake anyway. They could easily find a way out of that, if they wanted to maintain it. Again, they're getting half a trillion dollars. I think the Iranian people would be like, all right, those four people, eh, we let them go, for half a trill. We're giving away terrorists to get one guy back. Not even a guy -- a guy who deserted his post. It's unbelievable.

Of course, the fact that they're trying to sell this as this monumental achievement is just embarrassing. That's John Kerry for you. He's going to come out -- he's making these -- they put so much into this that you can negotiate with people like this. We all realize that down the road, what happens? They break the agreement. Then they believe to us, the American people. And they say, yes, look, technically they're in breach of this contract. But this is a historic document. This is a historic agreement. We can't throw it away because they made one little breach. This is going to happen. There's a back-and-forth. There's a flow to these things. And, yes, of course, sometimes they'll do things we don't like. But if we overact, we'll blow up a historic achievement. Now just the fact that it was signed is an achievement. When you go and you negotiate a new contract in the NFL and you sign the deal, but they don't give you any money, it's not a historic achievement.

PAT: You got 1.50 a year. But only 85 cents of that is guaranteed. That's a historic agreement! But that's what this administration has done since the beginning. They find a way to make something that was a tragic mistake, really, on their part. An incredibly historic or unprecedented event. They're really good at it. And then they lie about it. You know, if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

I didn't call the Islamic State the JV team. How many times have we been lied to by these people? Over and over -- I will -- I won't have a single lobbyist in my administration. Well, except for the 64. I didn't mean those 64.

STU: Everyone is going to --

PAT: I said a single one. I don't have a single one. There are 64 of them.

STU: Pat, there is a historic pronouncement to say there would be no lobbyists. Yes, you'll have your 64 that will filter in. If you call me out on that, we're blowing up this historic promise I made about lobbyists.

PAT: Historic. They are good at that. I don't remember Bush doing that. Do you? I don't even remember Clinton calling everything historic and unprecedented or -- but that's been their MO their whole administration.

STU: Well, the thing is, everything he does is the first time a black president has done it. So everything is historic. Just call everything historic. Year seven of his presidency, we're still saying it's historic that he's doing things.

Featured Image: WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 15: U.S President Barack Obama pauses during a news conference in the East Room of the White House in response to the Iran nuclear deal on July 15, 2015 in Washington, DC. The landmark deal will limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for relief from international sanctions. The agreement, which comes after almost two years of diplomacy, has also been praised by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani but condemned by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The great switch: Gates trades climate control for digital dominion

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Big Tech billionaire once said humanity must change or perish. Now he claims we’ll survive — just as elites prepare total surveillance.

For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

Hesham Elsherif / Stringer | Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.