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

Is There a Moral Way to Kill a Zombie?

November 14, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The latest season of The Walking Dead has dominated watercooler talk for weeks. People just can't seem to make peace with the new level of violence in the show. The early seasons, it seems, got rid of those pesky zombies in just the right way.

RELATED: #WerkPerks: ‘The Walking Dead’ Readies Jeffy for a Zombie Apocalypse

"It wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them," he said.

So if Glenn can't stomach The Walking Dead any longer, just what is he watching?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Is hacksawing a zombie a responsible way to kill?

• What does Stu think about the new movie Arrival?

• What does Glenn call the greatest war movie he's ever seen?

• How many times has Glenn seen Schindler's List?

• Are there spoilers below?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Andrew Hertzog says that The Walking Dead has officially jumped the shark.

PAT: Well, is he talking about the first episode? Because he's right about that. That was out of control. That was out of control.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: That was ugly. And -- but now Jeffy's told me last night's was out of control as well.

JEFFY: Well, I mean, it was. Last night was way out of control.

PAT: As much or more than the first one?

STU: Wait. So the apocalyptic zombie series was a little too violent for your tastes?

PAT: Well, seriously --

GLENN: Oh, no, Stu. It got to the point I stopped watching it.

PAT: It's gotten ridiculous.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like crazy. It's man's inhumanity to man now.

JEFFY: We're definitely at that now.

PAT: So is this worse than the opening episode?

JEFFY: Well, violence-wise, no.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Inhumanity?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: This Negan thing is ugly.

GLENN: Ugly.

JEFFY: And our love of Rick --

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: I mean, I haven't -- I haven't recorded my talking Walking Dead podcast yet. You'll be able to hear that later this afternoon on TheBlaze Radio.

PAT: Don't ruin it for people.

JEFFY: But this whole -- the Rick that we love --

PAT: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: -- needs to come back. Because the -- the Rick that Negan has developed --

PAT: Uh-huh. Not good.

JEFFY: Is bad. Is bad. Bad.

STU: There's not much you can give away obviously. I'm just surprised --

JEFFY: You don't want to. You don't want to on this show.

STU: I can understand not liking a certain amount of violence in your show. I get that. But I'm surprised that that's some line for you guys. This is a series.

GLENN: Because it was different. It was different because there are zombies. So it wasn't -- it was almost like it wasn't real.

PAT: It wasn't real.

GLENN: Yeah. But it wasn't -- you know -- and it wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them. Not all of them.

PAT: This has definitely changed.

GLENN: Yeah. And now it's man's inhumanity to man. So it's different. And I don't like that. I don't like watching, you know, men do things to other people for sport, for entertainment. I just don't like it. It bothers me.

Did you see -- did anybody see The Arrival this weekend?

STU: I did. I did.

PAT: No.

GLENN: And what did you think?

STU: I thought it was good. You know, I thought it was good. I did not see it -- it's in the mid-90s in Rotten Tomatoes, which I did not see it as that.

GLENN: I think it's the best alien movie -- the best -- the most tense alien movie I've seen in a long time without it being, you know, something is falling from the ceiling. You know, without it being alien.

STU: You said it the most tense movie that really did not --

GLENN: I thought it was a great sci-fi movie, one I haven't seen like it ever before. And I really loved it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The ending -- it's just very cerebral. It's one that you'll walk out of going, "Okay. I think I get it. I'm not sure if I get it."

STU: That's kind of how -- they're supposedly -- they keep promoting it as having a big twist ending.

GLENN: Oh, stop it.

STU: I didn't think it did really.

GLENN: Because you were walking in, thinking it's going to have a twist.

STU: Yeah, that always ruins it.

Again, why I always talk about spoiler alerts and why I will be very careful here as I speak about this. Because it does ruin your experience. If you go in there expecting something, then it comes and it's not a big deal. And that might have been what happened to me. I didn't think it was that great, to be perfectly honest. I thought it was well done. It was interesting. It was one of those movies, I was like, wow, I'm going to figure out something big coming up soon. Where is it? Where is it? And then, oh, okay. See you later. Like, it was just like kind of a letdown, I felt like. But it was well done. It was well done.

GLENN: Yeah, it was really well done.

STU: Yeah. She's great.

GLENN: Mini spoiler here. Turn down the radio, just a mini spoiler --

STU: Oh, gee, come on, why can't you --

GLENN: No, no. It's not going to --

PAT: Don't. Don't.

STU: Why?

GLENN: Turn the radio down. Turn your headphone --

PAT: We can't turn the radio down.

STU: We work with you.

GLENN: Jeez, for the love of Pete.

PAT: Don't do it. Don't.

JEFFY: Go ahead. Stop it. It's not going to ruin anything.

GLENN: You guys are weak and pathetic. Pathetic.

JEFFY: It's not going to ruin anything.

STU: I mean, I wouldn't -- knowing -- you know, this is in retrospect, but knowing what I know about the movie, I don't know that I would go to it.

GLENN: Oh, I would.

STU: It's certainly not worth a second viewing for me.

GLENN: Oh, I would like to see it again.

JEFFY: Oh, so, Glenn, give us the spoiler. Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: No, I'm not going to -- it's not a spoiler. It's not a spoiler. It's really not a spoiler. You wouldn't understand it until after it happened anyway. But I'm not going to give it. I'm not going to give it.

STU: Good.

GLENN: All right. So anybody see -- anybody see the Mel Gibson movie? Rex Reed just said it's the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan.

STU: Spoiler alert it's a war movie. Oh, come on.

GLENN: I 100 percent agree.

JEFFY: What did People magazine give it?

GLENN: I think that is just an outrageously great show -- or, movie.

JEFFY: Movie.

GLENN: Best war movie I've seen.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Really, really --

STU: There's been some good ones.

PAT: Is it better than like 13 Hours and American Sniper?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. It's really good. Really good.

PAT: Really? Because I thought American Sniper was tremendous. And 13 Hours. Both of those --

GLENN: It is. They both are very, very good.

PAT: And you like this better?

GLENN: This one -- yeah, I do. I like this better because I've -- I've just never seen a war movie like this. I've never seen one like this. Never seen the heroism. I mean, American Sniper, you know, you're looking at a hero. And, you know -- you know, the lone survivor. You're looking at a hero, not like this. Nothing like this. I've never seen a hero movie like this before. And this is true.

JEFFY: And they replicate the horrors of war really well.

GLENN: Like you won't believe.

JEFFY: And it's really, really good. But you don't want to watch The Walking Dead because it's too violent?

GLENN: It's like -- for instance, I have no problem watching Schindler's List once. I don't need to see that for entertainment. I wanted to see that for history's sake. But I don't need to see that for entertainment. So I don't want to watch a movie about Mengele. Hey, let's watch a show about Mengele and how creepy and icky he was. No. No, thank you. No, uh-uh. Not for entertainment purposes, no.

Nobody else has that line? Just me?

STU: Well, I think the line is sensible, that you don't watch hard-core violence so television. I mean, if that's your thing, that's your thing.

GLENN: No. It's not even hard-core violence. It's really not hard-core violence. Like, for instance, I took Raphe to Hacksaw Ridge. I saw it in advance. There's no swear words in it. It's a great message. The only thing -- there's no sex. There's no swear words. There's nothing.

The only thing in this movie is violence. But it is real violence. It's not gratuitous. It's a real depiction of war. And my son sat in the seat next to me. And, you know, he'll watch anything. And he's like Jeffy. He's just dead inside when it comes to playing video games and zombie stuff. The Walking Dead, not the man's inhumanity to man, but some of The Walking Dead wouldn't faze him. This fazed him. And I was glad to see it.

And he was like -- he reeled back a couple of times, like, "Whoa. Whoa. Whoa, Dad." I'm like, yeah, intense.

And he said, "This is what it's like?" And I'm like, "Yep, that's what war is like." It takes all the fun and games out of war.

STU: Which is positive.

GLENN: Very positive. Very positive.

STU: You do realize that.

So you're just saying you like -- you like when it's real and not when it's fake.

GLENN: Not that I want to watch snuff films, no.

STU: For example -- well, I mean, I -- to me, I would have almost, I think, the opposite line. Like, if it's just a -- you know, it's -- it's -- like I'll watch horror movies. I'll watch, you know --

GLENN: Well, that's what I looked at for like, for instance, The Walking Dead. But it wasn't hacksawing people, just regular people. It was hacksawing the zombies. And so I didn't have so much of a problem because it's really inhumane.

JEFFY: And they're telling us how to survive.

GLENN: I don't know. It's a weird line. I can watch an alien movie. And you can blow all the aliens up, and that's fine. Once you cross over into people and they're just regular people, no, I don't want to see that. I don't want to see that.

STU: Unless it really happened.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Unless those people actually went through those real things, then you want to see it.

GLENN: Or unless it's like West World, which I'm thoroughly enjoying.

STU: Oh, I gave up on it. It's boring.

JEFFY: I watched the first two, and I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so.

JEFFY: After the second episode, I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Maybe that's why I like it, because there's so much going on. And you want -- at least for me, I want to know what the heck is happening with the park. This is -- it's like Jurassic Park on steroids, except the people are the fakes. And you can go there and you can vacation and you can be whatever you want.

JEFFY: I love the idea of it.

GLENN: Oh, it's fantastic. And you can be a good guy, you can be a bad guy. You can be whatever you want. And you can do whatever you want because the people can't kill you, but you can kill them.

And so some people go with their families, and they have a nice little outing in the old wild west. Blah, blah. But the farther you get away from the town, the more violent and risky it becomes.

And they can't kill you, but you can kill them. And it's pretty amazing. Because there's -- because Anthony Hopkins plays this role that is just really good.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: The concept is really interesting. The execution to me has been --

GLENN: I like it.

STU: -- dull. I mean, that's my own personal opinion. But there's a lot -- I mean, there's a lot of good stuff out there to watch. You can lose yourself in the world of entertainment, which I've had to do many times over the past year and half or so.

GLENN: Me too. I've watched more television -- I didn't watch television up until last year. I had no connection to television at all until last year. Now, I'm like, I can't turn it off.

Featured Image: Image from season 7 of The Walking Dead.

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?