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

The Reason People Hate the Press

January 12, 2017
Staff

WRITER

We're not going to make it unless we can restore trust, integrity and truth. That's why our integrity must be unquestionable. Yes, we're flawed, imperfect, but we must strive for having the utmost integrity.

"There will come a time when nobody will know what to believe or where to go, and you have to be able to look them in the eye and say, Have I ever lied to you? Have I ever been grossly wrong on direction?" Glenn said Thursday on radio.

It's imperative to restore integrity in our own lives first. But what can we do to restore integrity in our leaders and the media? We must model --- and expect from others --- reasonable and logical discussions about ideas, not people or events.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

 

GLENN: I want to take you through -- I said last hour that there are three buckets of this story. There are three separate things. And they're all being thrown together as one story. And that's -- that's not true. And it's causing confusion and contention and arguments because everyone is looking at this as one story. It's not. It's many -- but they come down to three basic buckets.

The first one is the 35-page report and Buzzfeed. And that 35-page report that has stories in it of John McCain having the report, turning it over to the FBI. People are split on that. Is that right? That wrong?

That report includes Buzzfeed. They printed it. Should they or shouldn't they have? It includes the people that allegedly are part of the Trump team that were doing things that are absolutely, I believe, we can state false, but they are at least unproven, and the charges are given by Russian operatives to a source that we don't know.

Let's call those untrue. It also goes back to this -- this 35-page report. Was put together -- hired by the Republicans, trying to discredit Donald Trump. They didn't use it, and so they sold it to the Democrats, who also didn't use it, but it's been circulating since August.

There's all kinds of places to go on that bucket. And we're right now going there. But we're also conflating that bucket with this bucket, and that is the bucket of the two-page report that went to the president and the president-elect. And that one was to answer the question, is the -- are the Russians involved in trying to destroy our republic, or are they involved in trying to make America great again?

That bucket involves the two-page report, the Putin stuff, Trump, Clinton, all of the things that they have done and he said/she said, and spies, and, well, it's the war. And we're just trying to, you know, further a war with globalists. Blah, blah, blah.

And the third bucket is the charge that Donald Trump made yesterday, that should at least get serious consideration. And that is that the CIA, the FBI, the DHS, somebody in the spy community that doesn't like Donald Trump took this opportunity to teach Donald Trump a lesson by -- by releasing this information.

You can spend the day arguing in circular, meaningless arguments because people will jump from bucket to bucket. You'll make a good point for or against on the fake news. And then they'll jump over to, "Well, but the Russians aren't really doing this, or the Russians are really doing this." And all of a sudden, you're in the second bucket. And when you make a good point in the second bucket, "But it's the CIA. You know what they're like." That's the third bucket.

You can't argue when the facts are about so many different stories. And they really, truly are not connected. They're just connected because the events happened on the same day. That's the problem.

We can make this about people, and he did/she did, what he did, what they did. We can make this about people, and that's what small minds do. We can make this about events. The release of the report. The briefing with the president. We could make that about events. Or we could make this argument on this program about ideas.

What is the idea behind each of these buckets? Fake news. That's not the idea. We're not searching for fake news. Because that becomes events or people. We're searching for a way to agree on facts. We're searching for the truth.

Everybody is making this about, "See, they caused it." Instead of saying, "What is our goal here? Our goal is the truth." Now, if I have a perception that I am a conservative hack, what do I have to do to lesson that feeling among people so we can have a conversation and get to a place to where we can disagree on facts and we can agree on facts -- I'm sorry. We can disagree on policies, but we can agree on fact and we can continue a conversation?

Well, in my world, I figured the best thing I can do is stop worrying about everyone else and say, "This part of our society, this part of our problems, I own. I take responsibility for these things that I did." I won't take responsibility for all of it, but this is what I did and I own it, in hopes that someone else will finally come on our side or on their side and say, "You know what, I'm going to join him. I'm not going to worry about anybody else right now. I'm just going to look at what I did. Here's what I did. And I own this part."

And I'm not going to make anybody go on an apology tour. Good. Great. Let's talk.

How can we get to the truth now? How can we get more people to use actual critical thinking so we're not screaming over each other and at each other and getting nowhere and, in fact, making things worse?

That's what the fake news idea is. But the fake news stories are now just the people versus the press. That's all that is.

People versus the press. No. The idea is truth.

Let's do the two-page report. People are making this about Putin, Trump, or Clinton. Those are the small minds. The average minds are making it about the two-page report. Here's what it is.

Now, you have to report -- you have to talk about what average -- what the event is. But that's -- that's just to set the table. Here's the event. Now, we can waste our time talking about the event, or we can dive down into small minds talking about the people. Or we can say, "What's the idea behind the report? Why did this event even happen?" Because we're trying to decide whether or not Russia is a friend or a foe. Is that the idea?

No. We're trying to establish -- oh, my gosh, almost like the first bucket -- the truth. We're trying to find a way to discover truth.

And the third bucket: Donald Trump charged -- and this must be seriously investigated. I hope this isn't true. But it is a movie way things happen. Whether it's happening now, I don't know. But we have to dismiss it in a credible way. And if we don't dismiss it in a credible way, then the conspiracy theories will grow. Why don't we want conspiracy theories?

Because they -- they put fog all over the truth. It has to be a credible search for the truth and come what may. If we find that Clapper or anybody else was involved in trying to discredit the president-elect, that's important information. They need to be fired. If they broke the law, they need to be tried and go to jail. Period.

So we can talk about Donald Trump's charge. And it's important. Because if the CIA or Department of Homeland Security could do this to Donald Trump, what the hell chance do you have?

And I won't hear that, "Oh, well, the government would never do that," that's exactly what was said in the last administration about the FBI -- or, I'm sorry, about the IRS.

Yes. Yes. The government will do that.

What is the argument about the CIA and FBI really all about? Can we trust them to tell us the truth?

You see, the left and the right actually are striving in this particular case, for exactly the same idea. We're not going to make it unless we can restore trust, integrity, truth.

Remember when I said to you, everything you thought you could trust would be liquid -- or, would be solid is liquid, and vice-versa.

Is that not true today?

Do you -- do you fully trust our government apparatus, even our military intelligence, our CIA, our NSA? Do you trust that they're on the right side? I don't know. I think so. I hope so. But I don't know.

Do you remember when I said that would happen, and it's here? There was something else that I connected to that, almost every time.

That is why your integrity must be impeachable. Now, I don't know if you can be a person in the -- in the media and have that happen to you. I don't know if that could happen, especially if you're as flawed as I am and you continue to make mistakes.

But I know we have to strive for it. Your integrity must be impeachable because I said, there will come a time when nobody will know what to believe or where to go, and you have to be able to look them in the eye and say, "Have I ever lied to you? Have I ever been -- have I ever been grossly wrong on direction?"

Please, don't go there. Don't go there.

You need to tell your friends, please, don't make this about Trump or Clapper or the -- or the sex romps or the Democrats and the Republicans or John McCain or Putin or Clinton or anybody else. Don't even make this about the 35-page report, the two-page report, or Donald Trump's charge. Let's start with the idea. And the idea is integrity.

What can we do to restore integrity to our leaders and to our media? But that's an interesting exercise for all of us to have.

Perhaps it's more important for us to debate the idea, what is it that I can do to restore integrity to my own life?

With my own circle of influence, what have I done that I need to repair? Who have I alienated, that perhaps -- perhaps can be of aid, not in my cause, but in our cause of the American republic?

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

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.