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

Stephen Colbert's Childish, In-kind Rant Doesn't Help the Country

May 02, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Comedian and TV host Stephen Colbert didn't like how the president treated a CBS reporter in a recent interview. Admittedly, the president did not behave in an admirable way, but does stooping to his level make it better?

"There's a difference between joking with people who you love, joking with people who you like and then just telling a racist joke. When you're just out telling a racist joke because you hate 'them' --- fill in the blank --- then it's no longer comedy. It's a statement," Glenn said Tuesday on radio.

RELATED: Stephen Colbert Unleashes All-out Trump Takedown: ‘I Love Your Presidency, I Call It “Disgrace the Nation.”'

Stephen Colbert clearly made a statement with his response. Not only that, he became part of the problem --- but where does it end?

"By feeding back into it, [they think] 'we're not the lying media,'" Glenn said. "Shut up. Just prove it. Just live it. Show us that he's wrong."

Listen to this segment beginning at mark 2:56 from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: I want you to listen to Stephen Colbert and -- and CBS broadcast entity, what they broadcast last night about Donald Trump. Listen to this.

STEPHEN: Walking out in the middle of a sentence wasn't even the president's biggest insult to John Dickerson.

DONALD: And I think, actually, I've been very consistent. You know, it's very funny when the fake media goes out -- you know, which we call the mainstream, which sometimes I must say is you.

VOICE: You mean me personally? Or --

DONALD: Your show. I love your show. I call it Deface the Nation.

STEPHEN: Really?

GLENN: Okay. Stop. Stop. Stop.

Anybody think that's a smart move on President Trump's?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Anybody think that was a classy move?

PAT: No.

GLENN: Anybody think that you want to defend President Trump on stuff like that?

PAT: No.

STU: At least he said it to his face, I'll give him that.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: If you are going to get into a fight with a bully like that, what do you do? One of two things: You either punch back harder. And if the bully is -- is known to throw haymakers, you're going to get into a fight until one of you can't get up. Okay?

Only one's walking away from a fight like that. The other way to win in a fight like that is to kill them with kindness. Not play that game. The American way is to not play that game.

Now I want you to listen to Stephen Colbert.

STEPHEN: Donald Trump, John Dickerson is a fair-minded journalist and one of the most competent people who will ever walk into your office, and you treat him like that?

Now, John Dickerson has way too much dignity to trade insults with the president of the United States to his face. But I, sir, am no John Dickerson.

PAT: Uh-oh. Uh-oh. Here it comes.

(laughter)

STEPHEN: Okay.

GLENN: That is the sound of the republic dying.

STEPHEN: Let me introduce you to something we call the Tiffany way. When you insult one member of the CBS family, you insult us all. Bazinga. All right? Here we go. All right?

PAT: He's on one now.

(laughter)

STEPHEN: Mr. Trump, your presidency, I love your presidency. I call it Disgrace the Nation.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

STU: That's funny because it's the same joke.

PAT: Similar. Similar.

STEPHEN: You're the glutton with a button. You're a regular Gorge Washington. You're the presidunce, but you're turning into a real pricktator.

(laughter)

GLENN: That's the Tiffany way.

PAT: That was naughty.

STEPHEN: You attract more skinheads than free Rogaine. You have more people marching against you than cancer. You talk like a signed language gorilla who got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's (bleep) holster.

PAT: Whoa.

GLENN: Wow.

(applauding)

STEPHEN: Your presidential library --

GLENN: Man.

STEPHEN: Your presidential library is going to be a kid's menu and a couple of Juggs magazines. The only thing smaller than your hands is your tax returns. You can take that any way you want.

PAT: Okay.

STEPHEN: We've got a great show for you tonight.

PAT: Wow. He's got a great show for us tonight. All evidence to the contrary. But thanks.

STU: Yeah, his tax returns, he hasn't released those yet.

PAT: Right. He's comparing that to some body part.

STU: Right. But his tax returns haven't been released. That's why it's funny to say that. Because his tax returns haven't been released yet. And it's a good observation about his tax returns because he hasn't released those. So when he brings that up, it's funny because he hasn't even released them. I don't know if you saw that in the news.

GLENN: So the press --

STU: So horrible.

PAT: So bad.

GLENN: The press is -- the press just doesn't understand what they're doing. They just don't have any clue as to what they're doing.

When I -- when I went and started talking to members of the press and members of the opposite side. I said to them, "Please, don't make the mistakes that I made." Now --

PAT: And how much did they yell and scream about respect for the president?

GLENN: Oh, my.

PAT: Treating the president so badly. Jeez.

GLENN: That is -- look, what their response will be, "This president is so much worse -- how dare you even compare." It doesn't matter. It's the president of the United States. And beyond that, you are sounding like him. You have become just as despicable as him. When you say that, you know, look at the child-like behavior -- look at the child-like behavior, except he's doing it professionally. And so that's the little line that you have in your head. Well, I'm a comedian. That's not comedy. That's third grade comedy. That you could feel viscerally he felt that. Comedy stops becoming comedy when it it's real.

Now, every joke -- I mean, the problem with comedy is every joke, somebody is on the losing end of it, always. But there's a difference between joking with people who -- who you love, joking with people who you like, and then just telling a racist joke. When you're just out telling a racist joke because you hate them, fill in the blank, then it's no longer comedy. It's a statement.

That's a statement. And he's being rewarded right now by ratings. But where does this end? The press doesn't understand. By feeding back into it, we're not the lying media. We're not the lying media. We're not the lying media.

Shut up. Just prove it. Just live it. Show us that he's wrong. But even in their own Correspondents' Dinner, they couldn't do that. Even in their own Correspondents' Dinner, where they were the ones putting it on and then they were the ones that reported on what they were doing, they didn't report on -- on what Woodward and Bernstein really had said. What they reported on was that Woodward or Bernstein -- I can't remember which -- had made some point to the president about fake news. That it's not all fake news.

But before that, they went on and on and on about the responsibility of the media. It's a two-way street. They didn't report on that.

They didn't think that that part was important. What they thought was important was the slam on Donald Trump and the president. Zero self-reflection. It's not going to end well for the media. It's not going to end well for America. It's not going to end well for -- this is separating -- you know, here's what my mistake was: When I've said in the past, because I hurt half the country, they will look at that statement and say, "Yeah, see, he knows he was wrong, and he was hurting by lying to all of those conservatives and whipping them up into a frenzy." No, no, no. No. I was so convinced that I was right and that you were wrong, that it didn't matter how you felt. That I was right. And if you disagreed with me and the millions of people that had agreed with me, you were too stupid to get it.

PAT: Also, you remember how bad it was -- I mean, we weren't saying anything like this about Obama. We -- we were saying the guy is a Marxist. He has Marxist tendencies.

GLENN: Well, that was racist for us to say that.

PAT: That was all racist, and that was all horrible. And that was disrespectful, when we were just talking about his ideology. This is all personal stuff. These are all fourth grade insults. You're calling him names. I mean, they're doing everything they claim to be against.

GLENN: So Samantha Bee, who is a friend of mine, Samantha Bee, she's doing an interview with Mother Jones of all places. Could you go further left? And she is -- they talk about the interview with me.

Mother Jones: You had an intriguing interview with Glenn Beck at Christmastime. I love the sweaters. About our political rift. Beck had admitted that he had done damage by being so divisive. He said to you, "Please don't make the mistakes that I made." Do you think this is a time for people trying to come together or more of an oppositional moment?

Samantha says: Both. Listen, we're not in Kumbaya Town here, but you need to be able to talk to people. You need to be able to agree from time to time if we're going to get anywhere.

Once you've started a civil dialogue, it's a much smoother road to compromise. The key thing to remember is it's a daily practice and it's not easy.

Glenn and I, in the strongest terms possible, disagree on a lot of things. When you can agree on one thing, you should have no expectation that suddenly a person is converted to your way of thinking. You have to be willing to be frustrated constantly. There are certain things that we can all agree on, are terrible for America. Beck loves this country. I love this country. I chose this country. Blah, blah, blah. I have respect for the Constitution.

Great. Samantha, you are making exactly the same mistake that I made. Exactly the same mistake.

Stephen Colbert, you are both getting so wrapped up in your anger and hatred and vitriol for this president, that you are forgetting that a third of this country, if not 50 percent of this country, still like the man. Still agree with him.

And every time -- every time you do a monologue like Stephen Colbert did, it makes it impossible for someone who is either in the center -- and says, "Look, I don't like either side," to rally around you. To rally for your side. Because you're both acting like children.

Our country is better than this. We're better than this.

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.