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

‘Climate Denial’ a Crime? Canada Investigated 3 Groups Accused of Making These Claims

September 15, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Are we closer to a world where questioning climate change is illegal?

A Canadian agency spent more than a year investigating three organizations accused of “denying mainstream climate science.” An environmental group had complained about Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute. The organizations were accused of making “misleading” claims, including pointing to the sun as a huge factor in climate change and saying that carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant.

While the government has stopped poking around for now, the investigation could start up again if more people bring forward information, AKA accuses the groups of being “climate deniers.”

Pat and Stu looked at the Orwellian story and then discussed some easily debunked points about global warming using some handy hurricane data from the past 50 years.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: Do you know in Canada, they're also investigating climate denial? People who deny climate change are going to be investigated now.

So there's -- there's another thing that's coming to fruition.

JEFFY: You're darn right it is.

PAT: Is this politically correct viewpoint is now so entrenched, that if you don't subscribe to it, you could be investigated by law enforcement and perhaps eventually arrested and charged with it. It's just not that outrageous to think that could happen now.

JEFFY: It is not.

PAT: You better get on board with climate change, or we're going to put you in jail.

JEFFY: You pooh-pooh the congressmen and the senators that are crazy, and they say that at town halls, and they say that these people -- that it should happen. You say, eh, that will never happen. It's coming. They're going to try.

STU: Well, and here's the thing: If you actually go by the definition of, let's say Al Gore, you're going to find not just evil conservatives like ourselves, but the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States of America.

PAT: Right.

STU: Because what you have to believe, if you are Al Gore is not only is climate change happening. You have to believe that it is almost entirely or entirely man made. You also have to believe that it is catastrophic. And you also must believe that the government must take massive action to control the energy supply here in the United States. Because even if you believe the first three and you get to that last one, you say, you know what, I just think maybe the free market would be best at this. Or, maybe we should just like look at some -- you know, hopefully these companies can innovate. And we can create that.

PAT: Denier! Denier!

STU: You're a denier, unless you say absolutely without question to all of those things. For example, you also have to say that hurricanes are becoming more frequent, even though the science itself says they're becoming less frequent. Even though that's going on. Even though the NOAA actually says -- NOAA says that there is no indication in the last 120 years of any increase when it comes to hurricanes, at all, that is tied to man-made climate change, you still have to believe the opposite of those scientists.

PAT: Isn't there something we can do about NOAA? Can we not shut down that organization?

JEFFY: Or start telling people the truth. Can we, I don't know, bomb the organization?

STU: Is it Breitbart or is it NOAA? These bastards. It's so incredible.

PAT: It is. Because you could be reasonable and say, "Sure. I agree it's a little warmer than it was. But that's happened a million times." Well, that, you're a denier. You could also say, I think it's happened. And it's our fault.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: However, it's a good thing because there's going to be more food that grows because it's a little bit warmer. And it's not a problem. You're still a denier. That's not enough. You have to go with the catastrophic thing. And you also have to agree to --

STU: With the government action to solve the catastrophic thing. Because if you believe catastrophic consequences, but believe we should do something else about it, you're also a denier.

And, again, when it comes to the hurricanes -- because this is what happened. Stevie Wonder did this, right? Stevie Wonder was on stage at this hurricane benefit and tied hurricanes to man made global warming.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We now have 50 years of global hurricane data. There is no trend in the frequency or number of storms that reach hurricane force. This is from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA. Which I know you want to shut down NOAA. But listen to them for just a moment. Because I know everybody -- I know when I see Pat, a lot of times, he'll open his computer. I'll be standing behind him, and his home page will open up. It's almost always the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

PAT: It's my home page.

STU: It is your home page. You have -- when you email Pat, you can email him at Pat@GeophysicalFluidDynamicsLaboratory.net.

PAT: There's an ampersand in there. I don't know why. I don't know why.

(laughter)

STU: But it says -- this is a report they released -- not in 1912. Not 15 years ago. Not ten years ago, but August 31st of this year, as we led up to Hurricane Harvey and Irma --

PAT: Oh, my gosh, Stu, that's pathetic. How old were you August 31st of this year? Come on now.

STU: The same age I am currently. That's how old. Because it was just a few days ago. Okay?

STU: Oh.

JEFFY: Are you trying to make the case that Stevie Wonder saw this?

PAT: He did not see it.

STU: I don't think he did see it. He didn't see it. You know why? Because he doesn't choose to read the Geophysical Fluid Laboratory -- the Dynamics Laboratory material. It's not one of his main sources. That's why he can't see it. There may be another reason too. I don't know.

PAT: He should have them as his home page, like I have.

STU: There you go.

This is what they wrote: In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century, nor our analysis of trends in the Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120 years support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

I don't know how -- they are saying not only does it not confirm it, it's not consensus. They're saying, it does not support the notion.

JEFFY: Period. Yeah.

STU: Period.

PAT: And yet, we're the freaks. We're the haters. We're the irresponsible people who deny science.

STU: Yeah. And what do you like that, when there's an investigation going on? Because Al Gore tells you that you have to believe that there's going to be more brutal storms. And these people that keep coming out saying, "Oh, well, look, it's obvious. Look at these hurricanes. You got both Irma and you got Harvey. It's terrible. Of course you got to believe global warming."

So we believe the last few weeks, but not the last 12 years? It's insane. They will jump through any hoop to prove this right. And because they know if people believe it and people come along on this -- and I think the younger generations show real signs that they do believe a lot of these things, and if they believe it, they will be able to control everything. They will be able to control every piece of the economic landscape in the United States of America. Because once you control power, you can do anything. If you can push around century like that, and you can justify any change in regulation based on the idea that global has to be solved and we're the only ones that can solve it, man, that's a lot of power.

It's the same thing we're seeing with this stuff with Title 9 at colleges with these rape accusations. And Betsy DeVos did a speech about this. And she made all these crazy claims about all these, you know -- kids were going through this in college. And all these crazy rape accusations. Every one of them that she made happened. All the crazy stories she made happened. And it's because we have accepted, generally speaking, as a society, this society that 90 percent of men that go to college are rapists. So because there's a, quote, unquote, rape culture, you can justify any action. Of course, we all want to stop brutal rapes. Of course, we do. So you can justify any action. Any dismissal of First Amendment rights of do you process. Any of that can be dismissed. Because we have this much larger thing that we have to address. Which is our rape culture. Or global warming. Whatever it is. Once you get those things set in motion, you can do anything with them. And that is the plan of the left. I do think there are scientists who believe this could be bad. I do think there's a lot of people who do think that it could be bad. I do think there's some evidence that shows that we have warmed.

PAT: It's not 97 percent, though, I'll tell you that.

STU: It's certainly not 97 percent. Also, Al Gore does not care if that's true. He does not care if one scientist believes it's accurate. He does this because he wants control and to personally enrich himself at this point. But, yes, he probably does believe it. But it's immaterial to what he's doing. He just wants to be able to control large swaths of the United States economy. And not him personally. But his movement.

PAT: You know what I think this diatribe of yours is all about?

STU: What?

PAT: Jealousy. I think you're jealous that is talented enough to write something as beautiful as this.

VOICE: One thin September soon, a floating continent disappears in the midnight sun. Vapors rise, as fever settles on an acid sea. Neptune's bones dissolve. Snow glides from the mountain. Ice fathers floods for a season. Hard rain comes quickly. Then dirt is parched. Kindling is placed in the forest for the lightning celebration. Unknown creatures take their leave unmourned. Horses ready their stirrups. Passion seeks heroes and friends. The bell on the city on the hill is rung. The shepherd cries, the hour of choosing has arrived. Here are your tools.

PAT: Here are your tools.

STU: That is one of the worst things I've ever heard in my entire life.

I cannot believe a person would go on television and say those words in that order that way.

JEFFY: And got praised for it, by the way.

PAT: Oh, listen to this.

VOICE: I'm so glad you read that. That was really --

VOICE: Thanks for asking me.

VOICE: I'm happy to hear --

JEFFY: Thank you for asking me.

PAT: And he went home and he wept.

JEFFY: No one ever asked me to say these words in public before. Thank you.

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.