BLOGAugust 10, 2017

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

A Google software engineer lost his job this week after writing a 10-page internal memo critiquing the company’s diversity efforts.

In the memo, the engineer gathered some general observations based on research about men and women and what they can both offer to a company, suggesting some ways that tech jobs could become more friendly to women. He also objected to company programs that are only offered to employees based on race and gender.

“Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story,” he wrote in the memo.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in a statement that “portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

Stephen Crowder of LouderWithCrowder.com joined Glenn on radio Thursday to share his take on Google’s decision to fire the engineer.

“Is that still hate speech?” Crowder sarcastically said of the memo. “When you read the entire memo in context … I go ‘OK, this is a guy who’s a classical liberal … and he’s writing something genuinely trying to be productive.’”

GLENN: Steven Crowder, welcome to the program. I was talking to a millennial yesterday, a very smart, well-thought out millennial who said, "You know, I don't agree with this, but I have to tell you what my feelings were when I first heard about this memo." She said, "I don't like people telling me what I can and can't do because of my genetics.

And she said, you know, "I heard the quotes, that he was saying that I can't do these things because I'm genetically predisposed to X, Y or Z." And she had a big problem with this.

Now, the good thing about this millennial is she moved past her feelings into thought, but that's not really happening, especially even in the press.

STEVEN: Yeah, well, thanks for having me, Glenn.

You're absolutely right. You know, a couple of points about the memo. I hate to use the fake news hashtag, but when CNN goes out and says, anti-diversity manifestos, they call it, like it's The Count of Monte Cristo writing on the stone wall, next to days in prison. Manifesto. Anti-diversity. And then it says anti-woman. Well, the quotes they take are where this guy essentially says, listen, Google is essentially pushing diversity, hiring for diversity's sake. And it hasn't really been that successful. We may want to -- and, by the way, I'm not saying that all men and women are the same. There's a significant overlap. Of course, there are people who would fall on both signs of the spectrum when it comes to attributes and perhaps some shortcomings.

But as a general rule, this may be why we don't have as many women in tech, and he talks about how women generally value work-life balance over status, whereas men will drive themselves into the -- they'll work themselves into the ground for status. It does say, "Yeah, you know, listen, women tend to handle stress more emotionally. It does list some characteristics that might not lend themselves well to high-stress tech situations."

But then, and here's what the media doesn't cover: On the flip side, he says, "No, I strongly believe in diversity." And I think if we want to hire more women, we might want to place emphasis on the -- on the issues where women perhaps are more valuable to the company.

For example, they're more cooperative. In general, they're more agreeable than their male counterparts. In general, they're more people-oriented. They're more empathetic.

We don't really place a strong value on those attributes that Google in these positions -- we might do better to do so.

So, listen, is that still hate speech? Do you lock this guy up with the Nazis? I don't know. Leave it up to people to decide. But when you read the entire memo in context, I can't see -- you know, Glenn, this is one of those issues where I read it, I go, okay. This is a guy who is a classical liberal. He even gets some digs in at conservatives in this memo. People read it. He's certainly not a right-winger. And he's writing something genuinely trying to be productive. Generally writing out points as to where Google may be able to improve.

And Google says, we can't -- this is hate speech. We have to fire this guy. Which tells me, if this guy can't do it, you know, you and I haven't got a shot. They're not interested in a dialogue. For the same reason we couldn't have anyone from Google or anyone on Google's side come on my program to argue this issue. They don't want to discuss issues anymore. They've gone too far around the back.

GLENN: So a couple of things: I would agree with you. And I have not been able to find somebody that can make a cogent argument on how this isn't the beginning of fascism in the Google world. The institutionalization of fascism in the Google world.

I really want to understand how silencing somebody who is really, truly making valid points. You don't have to agree with them. But bringing out a valid argument. How the best way to deal with that is to silence them and to shun them and to name-call. That's fascism.

And why this is concerning -- you know, if they were just making ashtrays, I wouldn't really care. But they're not.

STEVEN: Yeah.

GLENN: These are the people who are the gateway to information. And if they are saying, "This information isn't worthy to even be discussed at the levels in Google," are they really going to allow us schlubs who don't know anything to access that information in an equal and fair way? I don't think so. It wouldn't -- it wouldn't make any sense at all. It would be completely inconsistent.

STEVEN: Well, you're talking about a company -- my friend Owen Benjamin talked about this on the program. You're talking about a company where when you Google how to be a better man, it shows you articles written from lesbians. So they can't help you be a better man, nor do they have any interest in doing so.

As a matter of fact, you mentioned fascism. You know, if you Google fascism, it says far-right ideology. You know, and then description. Description. But if you Google communism or socialism, there's no mention of the left. There's no mention of the left side of the political spectrum.

It really is -- and here's the deal: They have the right to do what they want. They have the right to fire this guy. I think we all agree on that.

GLENN: Yep.

STEVEN: What they can't do is say, we believe in diversity. We believe in difference of opinions and then fire somebody for a difference of opinion. That's the issue here, is the dishonesty. When like you've said, I've read anywhere from between 60 to 80 percent of our online interactions occur either somewhere between Google, Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon.

So when you think of how much information is controlled, it really is -- and there are a few. Listen, what's so offensive, are we really going to start firing people because someone says men and women are different? Are we at that point where it's offensive to say, hey -- and anyone who is married knows that it's true.

And, by the way, hey -- hey, men -- you can't say men and women are different. Men and women are exactly the same. Men can do everything women can do, and women can do everything men can do with the exact same results.

By the way, let's celebrate diversity.

Did I step into a time? What happened? What world did I fall into?

GLENN: And the fact that women and men are exactly the same, except they can't play the same sport. That's unfair. You're going to put women. Really? Women are going to have to compete with men on the basketball.

Well, wait. You were just saying that there wasn't a biological difference. What are you talking about?

STEVEN: Yeah. Unless it's a transgender, then just let him into the octagon to beat the living daylights out of women. That's progress.

I think, Glenn, I think that this is a real opportunity -- the pendulum swing states both ways. We've talked about that. You kind of saw that with Bush. Then the sort of anti-establishment sentiment from young people. Then it swung the other way with Barack Obama.

But the pendulum is swinging so quickly now. And I think the left has gone too far for it to swing back. I think you're seeing too many liberals. And we see this with our content, a lot of people who used to be liberal going, I just can't get on board with this. Once they read the memo, people go, "You know, it's offensive to say that men are more task-oriented. It's offensive to say women are more emotional."

It really is at a point -- and, by the way, really, what hurts people here is that they don't feel good about it. The women took a sick day at Google. They were so offended at the notion that they might find work too stressful, that they read this memo and took a sick day.

By the way, not all women are this weak, just the feminists at Google. That's important to note. I'm sure -- I'm sure your wife isn't.

My wife's reaction was so earnest. And it just hit me like a Mack Truck. She just said, "Do you have to talk about it? It makes me just so ashamed. Ugh, women who complain like that. They're just so weak. They're so obnoxious. Most women don't like to be around them. They're just draining." That's what my wife said. Isn't it ironic that a non-feminist, conservative, Christian woman finds feminists to be obnoxious in their weakness? And that's where we are.

GLENN: That's really -- but that is the progressive mantra, is weakness. Celebrate -- not celebrate diversity. Celebrate your weakness, and we will compensate. We will be your defender.

I think your -- this -- this millennial who said this, you know, I -- you know, this is the way I felt. I don't like people telling me one thing.

Well, wait. The other side is telling you that, oh, yes, you can do it, but only with special exemptions. Only with special protections. Only with special training.

No. I'm telling you if that's what you want to do, go do it. Go do it. How is that offensive to say, you don't need somebody in between you. That's just somebody sucking you dry of all of your power.

STEVEN: Right. A couple of things: You know, they say, I don't like being told what I can and can't do. And conservatives are saying, well, listen, we're not really telling you what you can and can't do. But we can all find common ground on one issue: Pullups. Right? Liberals want to lower the PT requirements in the military with pullups so that women can join more easily. And we say, hey, women biologically can do fewer pullups. So there's a great litmus test.

As far as what's offensive -- you know, offensive now isn't about intent. And we've talked about this with the Google algorithms. You know, for the most advanced tech company in the world, right? On my videos, Muslim singles and gay cruise ads are playing.

Well, we're trying to fix the algorithms. You're Google. If you can't associate proper advertisers with my -- who can?

So, I mean, we're talking about people's feelings. That is what it comes down to Google. It's not about intent. It's not about context. Leftists don't really understand context. Or they don't value context, I should say. Certainly, as a whole. Anyone can feel bad about anything. I'm feeling miserable this morning. You know why? It's stupid. But I have some nagging injuries.

So I haven't been able to go to the gym. So I've been doing these -- these water weight exercises. You know, those foam dumbbells in the pool. And I was thinking, you know, hey, good for me. I'm going out. I'm doing something.

So I go on Amazon to look to buy some, as opposed to the public pool where I've been going. And then I read the reviews, and it's nothing but 77-year-olds talking about their aquatic aerobic classes. And then all of a sudden, Amazon is tracking with advertisements and the ads, every time I'm in my browser of reverse mortgages. Or Wilford Brimley with diabetes. And I feel bad. I feel bad. It's my own doing.

STU: I believe it's pronounced diabetes.

It's interesting, Steven, it's a great point on the physical part of it. Because it's exactly the point he made in the memo, which is: If you look at the top 100 meter times of all time, the world record holder for women is slower than the yearly best times for high school men. I mean, there's a clear difference here. Right?

However, what that does not mean is that the all-time world record holder is not going to be a hell of a lot faster than me trying to run 100-meter. Point being, yes, on average, there are differences. But there are women in Google all the time that are outperforming men all the time. It's just a commentary on averages, and nobody is going to bother to take a look at that.

STEVEN: Sure.

GLENN: And who is it that is devaluing the basic intrinsic worth of the sexes? I'm not.

I believe that Women Are From Mars, Men Are From venus, or whichever planet it is. I believe that we are different for many different reasons. But it's important that we -- oh, my gosh -- celebrate that diversity. That we look and say, "This trait in a woman of being less about stuff is good." It's a good thing.

STEVEN: Right.

GLENN: And at the same time, the man is worried about stuff or thinking about stuff. When you put those two together, you have a nice balance. Why are we trying to destroy -- first, say that what men are is -- has no value. And what women are naturally also has no value. You have to be this thing that is not -- neither male nor female.

STEVEN: Right. And that's kind of -- you know, I want to go back to Stu real quick. I want to answer that. But I'll throw another one into the mix. We talked about 100-meter dash. You want to know something else?

Chess. There's a women's division for chess. Think about that for a second. It's not even close, if you look at the top players of all time. There is no female Bobby Fischer.

Now, women can enter the men's division in chess, and there have been some outliers. Maybe a couple cracked the top ranks throughout time, but then they have an exclusively women's division in chess, which is just significantly further behind.

Now, that does not mean that women are less intelligent. Chess is not an indicator of intelligence. But it is -- let's remove the physical. It is absolutely an indicator of how someone's brains work, how it processes information.

We can see the difference between standard people and ADHD people. We can see the difference between, you know, people who simply read differently, who have different faster reading comprehensions. It doesn't mean they're smarter. Some people are wired differently biologically.

To what you said, Glenn, you know, Christians, we have used this term for a long time, complimentarianism. You know, it goes back to Christ. Really, the first diversity celebrationist, I guess you'd say, where he said, hey, husbands, be good to your wives.

That was kind of new, the way he really placed emphasis on treating the women as the best among you. And then, women, submit to your husbands. And submit in the Biblical sense. Not submit like Muhammad. You're going to get a fresh one if you don't do exactly what I say, but submit meaning respect the authority in the household and love your husband. So this is what we've known for a long time, the truth we believe to be self-evident.

And I do think -- and you guys can tell me if you've noticed this or if you think I'm wrong, I think it's forced a lot of people to reexamine issues. They thought they were liberalized. You know, people -- I've had people go back to the same-sex marriage issue and say, "You know, I really just thought conservatives were just a bunch of anti-gay bigots." But now when I go back and I see some of the arguments, whether I agree with them or not, but I see some of the arguments where people said, "You know what, I just don't believe men and women are interchangeable. I do believe that a father is of intrinsic value and a mother is of intrinsic value. And that they are unique and not interchangeable." You know, once we said that's not the case culturally, we kind of opened the floodgates. And I've had people say, you know, I have to look back and see where we went around the bend.

GLENN: Steven Crowder from Louder with Crowder. I think you're exactly right. And I'm seeing it in not just this, but in many things. Sitting in Los Angeles with, you know, liberals who would have just thought that we were all just racist bigots for the last ten years. Actually sitting around a table and them saying, you know what, I'm actually for the Tenth Amendment. And I thought that was all racist. And now, suddenly, I find myself going, "Yeah, you know what, maybe we should have that Tenth Amendment." And then realizing, "Holy cow, wait a minute. I may have been wrong on this. I have to reevaluate a lot." That is happening.

And if we can open our arms and not say, "Yeah, told you so," and just be decent human beings with -- with the -- with the open mind and honest arguments, I think we will welcome a lot of people into the fold.

Steven Crowder, LouderwithCrowder.com. Thank you so much. We'll talk to you again, Steven. Appreciate it.

RADIO

The next war won’t have soldiers—Just code and cold machines

The next war will look VERY different, now that we have AI. Glenn speaks with Brandon Tseng, co-founder and president of Shield AI, a company making AI-powered drones and autonomous planes for the US Military. Brandon discusses his drone planes like the X-BAT, and also gives his take on new foreign weapons, like Putin’s new nuclear-powered cruise missile: "It sounds dumb."

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: The cofounder and president of Shield AI, Brandon Tseng is with us. He's a former Navy SEAL. How old are you? You look like you're 14. How old are you?

BRANDON: I'm 39.

GLENN: Thirty-nine. Anyway, you have -- you are making a huge the difference in the AI world, especially with defense. Especially well the expat. A new plane. Do you call them drones, or are they planes?

BRANDON: Expats are a vertical takeoff launch and land AI-piloted fighter jet. Sometimes when people think drones, they just think quad copters. Except, there's a whole world of drones.

GLENN: It's weird. You either think of the quad copters, or you just think of those gigantic gray drones.

BRANDON: Yeah. The Predators and Reapers, yeah.

GLENN: And we're not like that anymore, either. Right? Have we updated those?

BRANDON: No. So Shield AI builds a miniature version of said drone. That's also vertical takeoff launch and land. It's called the Vbat, weighs about 180 pounds. But it's meant to do the mission of these $40 million drones for a fraction of the cost. And so we've been using that with US forces, oh, man. Now, probably since 2019, but most recently, we've been working with the US Coast Guard. We've interdicted billions of drugs in the Caribbean. So you just set a record with the US Coast Guard, interdicting 20 tons --

GLENN: Are you blowing up the boats, or are you just --

BRANDON: Shield AI is not blowing up any boats. But, yeah, the Coast Guard is setting them on fire after the whole thing is said and done.

GLENN: Wow. So -- so let me -- let me go into the -- the future of warfare.

Because it -- it's a little freaky. And I don't even know. There's a story that just came out today. Because we're negotiating with Russia.

And Russia is always beating their chest. And they have something new.

This one, just sounds crazy. CNN, this morning. Putin claimed successful test of long range nuclear-powered cruise missile, amid diplomatic breakdown. And what this cruise missile is, you launch it. It's not just nuclear-tipped. It's nuclear-powered as well.

So the idea is, it would just stay up in space. And it will just stay up there until it's directed to hit something. Which I guess, you not only blow a city up.

But you also have the China syndrome happening at the same time. I don't even get it. What do you think of this weapon?

BRANDON: Yeah. It sounds crazy. It sounds dumb. It sounds overengineered. I mean, it actually reminds me of some of the things the US was doing in the '50s. I don't know if you know this. We had something called the Davey Crockett nuclear rocket. Which was a hand-held nuclear rocket launcher. They said, only a Navy rocket would be crazy enough to shoot this thing. Because you're firing a nuclear bomb over your shoulder. And you hope it goes far enough.

That's --

GLENN: 1950s were kind of scary.

BRANDON: Yeah. You can Wikipedia this stuff. It's in there. Kind of scary. Right with the nuclear-powered cruise missile. Fifteen hours. Like, okay. Now, why do you need it to be up in the air for 15 hours?

You're seeing where this thing is. It becomes an easier target for people to shoot down. And then to the point, now, what do you have if this thing actually blows up, at any point, whether we take it out, or they take it out. Now you have nuclear material over some area?

Like, again, something I could see. Some crazy scientist and engineers working on, something that I believe has near zero utility on the battlefield in any -- like, even -- even by the Russians.

GLENN: What about the hypersonic missiles now?

BRANDON: Yeah, no, the hypersonics are -- look, what I'm a big proponent of is first principles of warfare. So like mass, maneuver, speed is another principle of warfare. And so what the hypersonics are getting after is that first principle of the speed.

It's like, look, if you can hit your targets faster than they can react. There's something to do that. In that range, at that standoff, at that offset, that is something that is pretty interesting. Now, the challenge that the United States has had. Has been around to getting these to a feasible level.

And I know there's some efforts to bring down the cost of hypersonics. But it's also what makes it incredibly difficult, is when you start to go hypersonic. You know, multiple interdicts of Mach 1.0, to Mach 2, 3, 4. That is a hard, hard, hard, hard physics problem.

GLENN: Right.

You know, I've always felt like, whenever we saw something, you know, when you -- when you first saw the stealth bomber, we were probably on the second iteration. You know what I mean?

We were always -- we didn't always just show what we had.

Is that true anymore?

Do we have things that the world doesn't know, that --

BRANDON: I don't think we have too many things that the world doesn't know about.

Certainly, there are classified programs.

And I think the US does have a couple -- not technologies. You know, up its -- its sleeve. Just like, you know, concepts. Operating concepts.

Is what I would say. We still are like pretty good at.

And so what you're seeing today is in the military world.

You see a lot in the -- you know, just the consumer software world. Where industry is really leading, in this day and age.

So you see industry leading the customer, more than what I would say in the past, right?

In the '80s. '90s. Early 2000s. You would seat customer leading industry to what --

GLENN: We want to do this.

BRANDON: Yeah. Exactly.

GLENN: Are we -- are you concerned at all, with -- with AI and technology being so readily available, and cheap?

You know, everywhere.

That everybody can -- can do some really bad damage. You know, you don't have to be a -- you don't have to be the United States of America.

BRANDON: Yeah. Look, I think every new technology is a double-edged sword. It can produce a ton of value for the world. It can do a lot of value for the world. And at the same time, we put that technology into the wrong person's hands, it can do damage to the world. And so I think the same was true of the internet.

The same is true of now providing compute power into massive amount of compute power into someone's hand, just via an IPhone or an android phone. And so I don't look at AI -- like, I don't worry about AI and autonomy.

And I think it's wrong to prohibit the advancement of a technology, simply because, you know, some wrong can be done with it.

GLENN: Right.

BRANDON: There's a ton of things, where a lot of wrong, we've seen this.

A lot of things can be weaponized. Whether it's an airplane. Whether it's a car. Whether it's the internet. You name it.

But these technologies aren't bad for the sake of being a new technology.

GLENN: Yeah.

I've talked to the president about this several times. The one thing that freaks him out, keeps him up at night is nuclear world. He said, I rebuilt the nuclear arsenal. And he said, you don't even want to understand what we can do. He's like, it's -- it's always been bad. He said, it's -- it's colossally bad. And once it starts, it's over.

And he's really -- he does, I think -- what little sleep he does get, I think there are times where he has lost sleep over war on nuclear, with nuclear weapons.

Is there any of this new technology, is there anything about AI or any of this stuff that freaks you out, that you think, this is really scary, if it -- if it goes wrong or whatever?

BRANDON: Yeah. The way I think about it is, look, nuclear deterrence, has deterred nuclear war since we -- since 1945.

GLENN: Yes. Right. Yeah.

BRANDON: And that largely stopped world wars for the past 80-plus years.

GLENN: Right.

BRANDON: And so our conventional deterrence has been dominated by our aircraft carriers and our submarines in terms of how we deter large state-on-state conflicts in this day and age. It's with these -- along with the number of other, you know, levers that we pull. Economic levers. Diplomacy levers. But the military lever has been dominated by our aircraft carriers, our air power, and our submarines.

GLENN: Sure.

BRANDON: So where I see the world going. It's like AI and autonomy is enabling this next generation of deterrence. Because our legacy weapons systems, they're not as well-respected. Our aircraft carriers are not as respected as they once were. Right?

GLENN: I'm a sitting duck.

BRANDON: Yeah, when the enemy has antiship missiles that outrange what these carriers can launch with our jets.

And they have surface-to-air missile systems that can target any fuel tanker, like, that's when you see your conventional deterrence capabilities start to erode.

AI and autonomy is that massive unlock for the military, for our allies.

It enables, you know, the United States to feel millions of drones. You can't feel millions of drone pilots.

We don't have enough people.

Aren't enough people signing up.

What you can do is enable small groups of people to feel these drone swarms that I believe will be the most strategic conventional deterrence for the next 25 years. And again, that's why I started Shield AI. We have the tag line. The greatest victory requires no war.

It is about having such a dominant military that any adversary thinks twice before starting, either a straightforward conflict or an asymmetric one.

GLENN: Are you concerned about -- you know, Elon Musk says. And I don't know how true this is.

But Elon Musk says we are the new Grok.
I think it's five or six that is coming. Is 60 percent close to AGI. Are you concerned about AGI and ASI? And what that might mean?

BRANDON: I'm not concerned about AGI, but I'm an eternal optimist. And so I put that disclaimer out there. It's really hard to say what 60 percent of AGI means.

GLENN: Right.

BRANDON: What I do think is really interesting, really fascinating.

It's now what is possible in this day and age with AI and autonomy. And I'll share something cool that I looked up the other day, and why I'm an optimist around it.

I asked Grok 4, I said, "What was the economic impact of the internet from 2000 to 2025 on global GDP by a cumulative basis?" Its estimate was 134 trillion dollars' worth of economic value, attributed to that core underlying technology, being the internet.

A ton of value created for the world. I then asked it, what is the value of AI and autonomy going to be for the world from 2025 to 2050, estimated that. It's estimate -- maybe it's biased if it's AI estimating itself.

Was -- yeah. Yeah. Four and a half quadrillion dollars, forty times bigger than the internet. And so that world. Again, I'm a techno optimist. I get excited about that.

It's hard to really understand or fathom what that world looks like, but I think it's going to be a net positive for the world in a way that so many underlying core technologies of life have been.

Now, it doesn't mean that there's -- it's all sunshine and -- and rainbows. There's going to be some bad actors out there with it for sure.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. So last question, I hate to ask you this. But I have to ask you this: Being a guy who is in into drones, everything else. What we saw last year over New Jersey, what the hell was that?

BRANDON: I -- I don't understand know what it was in New Jersey.

But I don't like the idea that there was anybody able to fly drones at all.

GLENN: Yeah. Those were large too.

BRANDON: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't know if it was another state.

I don't know if people were pulling pranks. Like they've done in the past. I don't know what it was.

GLENN: But do you think it could have been us?

BRANDON: No. I think it was someone else. Is what I think it was.

GLENN: That's a little frightening.

BRANDON: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I don't know what it was though. So, yeah.

GLENN: Have you ruled out extraterrestrial.

BRANDON: I probably haven't paid enough attention to it. But, yeah. I don't know what it was.

GLENN: That's a little frightening. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching.

You bet.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

He Hunted SATANIST Mexican Cartels and SURVIVED | Dave Franke | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 272

Dave Franke stared down the cartel in Mexico’s blood-soaked Zacatecas — and lived. Now he tells Glenn the unfiltered truth: The cartels are “absolutely” operating inside the United States. Through raw, firsthand accounts, he rips the veil off the narco-satanic cult of Santa Muerte — the Saint of Death — and the savage brutality it fuels. Trump calls the cartels “the ISIS of the Western hemisphere,” and his Homeland Security Task Force has already seized thousands of terrorists and cartel operatives, two million fentanyl pills, and 70 tons of narcotics. But Dave warns: We’ve barely “scratched the surface.” Facing entrenched corruption, human trafficking, and a highly profitable drug trade, Glenn and Dave debate a radical fix — legalize drugs — and ask the explosive question: Does our government let the cartels thrive in exchange for intel, just like in "Ozark"? It’s the story that neither Fox nor CNN would let Glenn tell finally coming to the light, but is it already too late?

RADIO

“He’s killing it”: The truth about Trump’s 2028 power team

Will Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio team up for a 2028 presidential run? Glenn Beck asked them both, separately, and shockingly, they gave him the SAME answer. Glenn reveals what they said, as well as what they said about President Trump...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Blaze.com has a news story out: J.D. Vance responds to the possibility of a Vance/Rubio presidential ticket. Responds to a --
I -- I love his response. He was speaking on Pod Force One. It's a podcast from the New York Post. And they asked him about, you know, how do you feel about a Vance/Rubio ticket?

And he said, it -- well, you know, we get along really, really well. The reason why we're successful, is because all of us work together really well.

STU: Which is not necessarily the case of the first term. You cannot say that about the people working in the White House.

GLENN: No. And most. Most.

I mean, I was saying this to a friend of mine, we were talking. And he asked me about a Vance/Rubio ticket. And I said, I talked to J.D. Vance and Rubio in the hallways of the White House. Just recently.

And about that. And I said, and they both said exactly the same thing.

Let's get through the next three and a half years. Things could change quickly in the next three and a half years.

STU: It's true.

There is a feeling I think on the right. That there's a lot of exciting things happening. Many of them positive.

GLENN: Three and a half years say long way.

STU: We are a long ways away. We are a long way away from the midterm elections.

I mean, think about this. We are what know.

We are -- to this point, closer to Trump's inauguration, than we are to the midterms.

GLENN: To the midterms.

STU: That seems impossible!

GLENN: I know. Impossible.

STU: In my head. But that's true to this moment.

GLENN: It's true. So it's crazy how much could change in the next four years, let alone the next one year.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: And things are going really, really well.

STU: That's for us. I know you're moving on to something else. The left hates this more than they've hated anything ever. Every person I've known on the left has been driven completely insane by this.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. By all of this, or by all of the leadership. Of the other side?

I mean, what -- what is really driving them insane

STU: They're totally driven by Trump. I'm not revealing anything new here. I think it's more extreme now, than it was in the first term.

GLENN: It is. But it's not -- they're not driven insane by Donald Trump.

I mean, Donald Trump does -- he does help them along, because he likes toying with them.

STU: Sure. Sure.

GLENN: So that doesn't help.

However, it is -- the response from the media. And the response from the Democrats that have made him into Hitler.

Not Donald Trump.

STU: No. I mean, their analysis of Donald Trump is that he's the worst human being of all time. I think that's helped along by leadership. Helped along by the media.

GLENN: They would elect Pol Pot over Donald Trump.

At this point.

STU: Pol Pot implemented a lot of policies that they liked.

GLENN: That's true. That's true. We should all be against the killing fields. But at this point, I'm not sure they would be against the killing fields.

STU: I don't know if the Hamas wing of the democratic party is against the killing fields.

I'm not sure about that. But I will say, if you look at overall. You look at approval ratings of Donald Trump. They're not at their highest point right now. That's not just Democrats.

That's the entire country.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: So if that were to continue, if a couple things go wrong, if the economy turns down.

We talked a lot about the economy being at risk, especially outside of the AI bubble.

I was reading something yesterday about, you know, the AI situation. It's funny. It's basically giving us all of these gains. It's almost all AI-related. All these -- we talked to experts about this. It's almost all a bunch of money being passed in between like seven companies.

And at the end of the day, let's just say that were to collapse. It would hurt our economy. And who knows where we would be.

GLENN: Even if it doesn't collapse, think of all the jobs that are probably going to be lost in the next three years. We're starting to see jobs lost because of AI now. It's going to become very, very unpopular.

And AI I think is going to become very, very unpopular. And those who, you know, are using AI. This is getting very dicey for me. I'm starting to regret everything that I've done in the last two years.

But it's going to become very, very unpopular, because it will take jobs. If companies decide to use it as people, and not as a tool for people. But, anyway, let's -- let's move on.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The one thing. The one thing that they said, that is the point I wanted to make on this was, and they say it in TheBlaze article.

A lot of the good work we've done is because we do it as an administration, and we're all able to work together. What both of them said to me, on separate occasions, when I said this was, I said to Rubio and to Vance. You are killing it!

You're just killing it right now. And they both said, no, no, no. Both of them separately. No, no, no, no. He's killing it. Pointing to the Oval Office, "He's killing it. We're just following what he is directing us to do."

And I'm like, "Yeah. But you're also doing a very effective job at doing that. I've seen presidents give orders. I saw Donald Trump trying to give orders last time. And it didn't work out well."

And he's like, "No. We're a great, great team."

STU: That's good to hear.

GLENN: Yeah, but what I wanted to say was, I can't think of a time in my lifetime, I mean, I was not around the White House of the Reagan years. So I don't know. But I can't think of a time where I have seen honest credit, given by the top leadership in hallway conversations, to the president.

You know what I mean?

It was -- because it was honest. It was real. It wasn't like, you know. Oh, no.

It's not me. It's him. It was real.

No, no, no. You don't understand. His grand strategy amazing.

And we're just following it.

You know, that told me a lot.

A lot.

And told me a lot about the quality of people around him.

STU: And to be honest about it. It's also the right answer.

You didn't get the sense that they -- they are saying the thing they know is going to keep them in the good graces.

GLENN: No, I didn't. I didn't.

STU: That's good. That's really good.

GLENN: Yeah, I don't think either of those guys would have said -- they would have said thank you. It wasn't like that. It wasn't like that. It was no, no, no, no. You don't understand. He is running the show.

STU: I think the Venezuela boat situation is an interesting highlight of this.

Again, we've talked about all the questions about it. There's some stuff to discuss.

However, like, that is something that is super important, to Marco Rubio. Like, that is -- I would say, central to his -- that entire situation is very central to his belief system.

And his --

GLENN: Yes. Freeing the people of Venezuela.

STU: Really important to him. And the fact that Trump really takes that seriously. And is doing something about it, is really important to Rubio. I think it's --

GLENN: But I don't think -- see, that's the way I think most administrations would look at it, like I want to help Rubio out. I know you're really passionate about this. Let me do this. And I agree with you. But I really think, it's the other way around. I think Donald Trump is like, here's why this is important.

STU: Oh, I think --

GLENN: And it's a little bit with Rubio, what you're dealing with, what you're thinking. Let me show you the grand strategy of how it has to happen. And I think the big, big vision is coming from Donald Trump.

And it accomplishes everything that everybody else is looking to do. But it's much bigger vision.

The big vision is coming from him, I think.

STU: Yeah. I think, the other thing that is very central to Donald Trump belief system. Besides the idea that he doesn't want people coming across the border illegally. He's very against illegal subs. Not just a crime, that is associated with them.

But he's like, obviously, been really hard against that -- his entire life.

GLENN: No. I think -- I mean, I think -- I mean, you wouldn't do this, because of the Constitution.

But I think if he could, I think you would be like, yeah. Drug dealers. Execute.

STU: Well, he's kind of said that. What was the guy in the Philippines?

GLENN: Yeah, kind of like that. Look, he just kills them.

STU: And that's what some of the criticism is over the boats. Right?

Surprised to hear, there's not a lot of great trial attorneys involved in the process, when -- there's not defense being presented when -- when the drone is overhead. They believe these are threats. They believe they have this -- this -- that's going to go through the courts. It's going to be challenged.

GLENN: I know.

STU: And they will have to deal with that. But he is -- he is -- more importantly than stopping those drugs from coming in. Because you see the boats. You're like, well, what could that even do to our country? Swallowed up like -- that wouldn't even get through a Washington, DC, cocktail party, the amount of drugs they could carry on one of those boats.

GLENN: Well, if Hunter.

STU: If Hunter is there obviously.

GLENN: Or somebody else from the Biden administration.

STU: Right. Who knows who it could have been, with all the cocaine in the White House. But, I mean, the point there is, the message.

The message is quite clear what -- what they're sending to -- to Venezuela. Which is not just don't send boats. It is stop everything you're doing. By the way, did you notice that very large ship off your coast?

Like, we are sending all sorts of messages to them.

Much deeper than a please stop delivering some cocaine here.

GLENN: Do you think the fact that we sent one of our biggest bombers from North Dakota to just buzz the coastline. Just in the international waters.

STU: It's a beautiful coastline. Some sightseeing.

GLENN: Did you see this?

Two of our bombers from the air base in North Dakota ran what I would describe as -- and I think they want him to describe it in Venezuela, the same way. As a trial run!

Two times, now, we have sent two bombers. Big bombers. Right to the line of Venezuela. Right to international waters.

They flew all the way down from North Dakota. Down, made that run.

And then headed on home!

He is sending all -- the guy is brilliant.

He is sending all kinds of signals.

You guys should take care of him.

STU: What you know signal he's saying to me?

That he doesn't care about global warming. He see not care about the emissions from that plane.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

Doesn't that feel good?

RADIO

Why Trump’s “BAILOUT” of Argentina is actually AMERICA FIRST

Why did President Trump recently do a currency swap with Argentina and make a deal for Argentinian beef imports? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to explain why she believes these deals are actually America First and in our national security interests. Plus, Carol and Glenn discuss the effects of Trump's tariffs and the government shutdown.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol, welcome to the program.

CAROL: Hi, Glenn. How are you?

GLENN: Good. Can you tell me what's going on in Argentina?

First of all, the currency swap. We didn't make a loan to Argentina. We made a currency swap. Which I'm not really -- I'm not really fond of the -- what is it? The piece zero. What is their currency down in Argentina?

CAROL: The Argentinian peso. You don't have a bunch of those in your vault with all your gold and silver?

GLENN: No. No. I don't. I don't.

But we do now, because we currency swapped, right? What's it mean?

CAROL: Yes, so this is -- this is not -- you know, just giving known Argentina for its government to spend. This is a financial support, which, by the way, currency swaps are not something that is unusual.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: You know, we do this all the time with our allies, with Japan and Canada and what not. What is unusual in this particular situation, is how it's affected.

So basically, what happened is that we gave the Argentinian Central Bank dollars. We took as collateral the peso, and that is meant to support the Argentinian peso and help to stabilize this currency.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: And a couple of things of note, one is how it was done is interesting. Because normally when we do currency swaps, and we have these lines, it's done through the Federal Reserve, or central bank.

This time, it was not. It was done through the Treasury, through something called the ESF. The Exchange Stabilization Fund, which is sort of a black box fund that allows Treasury to move quickly. You don't need Jay Powell. You don't need the approval of Congress in order to do these things.

GLENN: And that's what it was built for, to stabilize currency in friendly countries?

CAROL: And in the US, by the way,
because I can talk about the history and how we've used it in the US before. But just to kind of get to the Argentinian point. We did this, you know, before the election to help, you know, stabilize things for Milei, so that his government could win.

But we didn't do this because we think Milei is a good guy, or he has fabulous hair, even though we do think that.

The reason we did that is to secure our interests. Because you know who has been making a play in Argentina and throughout Latin America? You know who has had a long-term currency swap with Argentina. It's another country, I'll give you all a hint, and it rhymes with China. China's influence all around the world with their Belt and Road Initiatives where they're trying to dominate traditional infrastructure, digital infrastructure, financial infrastructure, we are trying to kick out their influence. For national security reasons. Also, it just so happens, that Argentina has the second largest reserve of lithium, as well as a smaller set of reserves of other rare-earth elements, that we need access to, for our economic and national security.

So that is what is underpinning all of this. It's because we don't want to be speaking mandarin one day.

GLENN: It's amazing how Donald Trump. People just don't understand this.

Everything he's doing in south marker, he's realigning the globe.

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: He's doing -- he's doing his own version of America first, Great Reset, and he's just doing it by himself.

I mean, it's pretty incredible, isn't it? Carol?

It really is.

This is why, remember, when we first had the discussion by Scott Bessent.

And I eased everyone ever seen concerns.

Scott Bessent made his fortune on foreign currency exchange. There is nobody who understands the machinations of how you use currency to support countries, and also, you know, the impact on political influence. Like Scott Bessent.

So he has been side by side with President Trump. Who has said, you know. China's influence in South America is a national security issue.

It's a priority.

And, you know, at the time, when we're seeing a reset of the global financial order, and you had China making this very big play. At the same time, when we really have a serious issue with our fiscal foundation. At a minimum, we need to make sure that we have our hemisphere, locked down, before we can do anything else.

And China has really been focused on making inroads in Latin America, and that is what this is all about. And it's not just about the currency swap.

You talked about the importation of Argentina beef. That's a piece of it as well.

And we have to support US ranchers. We have to make it easier for them to do business. We have to remove regulation. This extra piece from Argentina, this is a long-term play. And I know that it's hard for people who are ranchers and who are dealing with this day to day. But this is a long-term play for national security. Because otherwise, it's not going to be Argentinians. It's going to be China that owns everything.

GLENN: Yeah. So I'm looking at Venezuela. What's happening there.

And I don't think that's about drug running. I mean, you know, it is about drug running. But it's not.

It's about, again, taking control of this hemisphere. True or false?

CAROL: Absolutely. And, I mean, this a -- this isn't even you or I guessing about this. This has been a stated goal of the Trump administration.

One of the great things about the Trump administration is Trump, whether he intends to or not. Is incredibly traps parent

He will tell you, what -- he will tell you the things he will do, even if they're couched, you know, in a different record. You can look through that record, and see what that candy is on the inside. And he told us about that candy. So he's been very clear, in addition to the commodities, and the -- the words, the elements, and all these things that are very plentiful in South America. We need to make sure that we have within our allies control so we can have access to.

You do not want China to have military relationships, and other very strong relationships. Within South America.

Because we know what that means long-term for the United States.

GLENN: How is Trump doing overall?

CAROL: So I think overall, I think he's doing quite well. I think from a foreign policy perspective, and I said this during the last administration. Think of him as a business guy. But from a foreign policy perspective, he's an absolutely just killing it. Crushing it. He's been doing a great job in terms of securing the borders. Obviously, we would like to see more deportations. But they're certainly trying and have some roadblocks. And I think from an economic standpoint, the fact that he has this long-term lens, even though some of the machinations I don't agree with, these are the important things. This is finally an administration who says, wait. Our military stockpile is at risk. Because we don't have the components and the supply chain to be able to make products.

We're dependent upon other products in other countries. And assuming they're going to sell us those products, so that we can be able to defend ourselves against them. That doesn't make any sense.

So finally, we have people who are addressing the long-term problems.

And I think the most important thing for a country right now subsidy that we have the runway.

Because we cannot, in three years. Or three and a half years, turn over the reins to another set of people, who want to undo all of this, who hate the United States. Who want to walk that back.

We need people like President Trump. Like the people he's developing. Who understand the long-term issues, that we face that have been built up over many years.

From this broken fiscal foundation. From both parties. But that's where we are today. And he is doing the hard work to try to fix that.

And it's not necessarily apparent to everyone who doesn't understand at this level. But it is so critical, for this very important reset that we're going to have.

GLENN: So I know that you're not a fan of tariffs. I'm not a fan of tariffs.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: However, the things that have been happening, the tariffs are not doing what everybody thought they would do.

Why is that?

CAROL: Well, I don't necessarily agree that they're not doing what people thought they would do.

I think that they're -- there has been a bit of overhype on how things are presented.

So do tariffs make it more expensive for businesses and consumers to buy certain goods and services? Yes.

And that has happened. And I've seen it with my own eyes. With my own company. In joy venture partners and small businesses across the country.

There are small businesses that have major burdens. These are the things we thought would happen. And they are happening. In terms of creating runaway inflation, I don't think anybody said that at the levels they are.

They said that when he kicked them up to 100 percent. Which he walked back.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: But we also know when you look at inflation data. That the way that calculated. There's a lot of picking and choosing and substitutions. So, of course, when you say, oh, well, this particular product is being hit too much.

Some of it is substituted to this. Of course, it's not going to show up in the same way, as it affects people in their day-to-day lives. So, again, I think it's that nuanced understanding.

It's the same thing, you know, when people said, hey, why am I at the grocery store? And everything is 30 percent higher. And they're telling us that inflation under Biden is 4 percent. We know that has to do with the calculation.

So I think that tariffs are causing some issues. And some pain.

And hopefully, that can be sorted out in time.

But, you know, absent that particular strategy, I think other things that he's doing, on the American front, to shore up our security from an economic and national security standpoint, make a lot of sense.

STU: And, Carol, I think a lot of people lose sight. Just because it was such a big issue.

Look, trade is important.

But it's also not a huge part of our economy. Imported good news are about ten percent of our economy.

Does that number sound about right?

CAROL: You know, it's a small percent.

I would want to go back and verify the neighbor.

I have so many things rolling around in my head today. That's not top of mind.

But it's not a meaningful percent of our direct -- where does impact, there's a component, where it flows through the economy. And it affects domestic goods and services.

So even, if, you know, on a headline basis, it doesn't seem like it's that important, it can flow through the rest of the economy and create a drag and create some issues there.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: I want to take a break. And, Carol, I want to come back.

Carol Roth is the economist I trust. She's a former investment banker. And really has a clear eye, on not Wall Street. But on Main Street.

I want to talk to you about the shut down. We're about to see possible delays at our airport. Our air traffic controllers. SNAP is about to expire. What happens here. When his the average person begin to really feel the shutdown. And is there a -- is there a line where it just has gone too far.

GLENN: So, Carol, tell me where we are on the shutdown.

CAROL: Well, it's tough. And I think I've said to you before, Glenn. As somebody who would love to see many parts of the government be shut down permanently. There's part of me that goes, this is fantastic. And I hope it goes on forever.

GLENN: Me too.

CAROL: Obviously, there are people who -- you know, we want to make sure that we get paid. We want to make sure the military get paid. We want to make sure that air traffic controllers get paid. So there's a little bit of give and take. Probably the most surprising thing that has come to light is how many people are on food assistance in this country.

GLENN: Yes.

CAROL: When we have something that's supposed to be a safety net, it's almost in my mind, supposed to be like under the tightrope. The trampoline under the tightrope. You fall, and then it pushes you back up. And it's a temporary solution. I feel like we've turned that net into a hammock, where people are just taking a nap. And sleeping in it long-term. And, you know, that is something that even though devastating for the families who truly need to be on it. The fact that this is getting some light on it, I think, you know, that could be a small silver lining here. And I think that will put pressure on the Democratic base. The Democrats are holding out for a bunch of insanity, for illegals over trying to feed the people who are actually in their base. So I'm hoping that puts enough pressure for everybody else though. I think when this really starts to flow through the economy and becomes a drag on numbers and becomes a drag on the stock market, is where you're going to -- to see a little bit more --

GLENN: Any idea when that happens?

CAROL: It's hard to say. Because as we know right now, with the government shutdown. We're not even getting numbers.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right.

CAROL: But, you know, we cannot afford for GDP to contract. We cannot afford for the consumer, which is 70 percent of the economy.

To feel like they cannot spend. Because that flows through tax receipts. And if we have lower tax receipts. It will blow up the deficit. If we blow up the deficit, we can end up in a debt spiral. So that's the big issue here.

GLENN: Well, the food stamps. If you look the at the SNAP program through ethnicity. 45.6 percent of Afghans who have been imported here in America, are on food stamps. Forty-two percent of the Somali community. Thirty-four percent of the Iraqi community, and 23 percent of the Haitian community. That just can't happen!

That just can't happen.

CAROL: Yeah. You know, in terms of those numbers. I think there's a common sense approach that we need to take here. In terms of immigration.

Which I've raised the question with AI. You know, how much immigration do we actually need?

But to the extent that we do invite great people into our country, who share our values. We need to means test that, and you should not be allowed to come here and then be a dependent on the government.

That should be a position of coming to this country.

And I think that's something that seems like it would maybe a 20 or 90/10 issue. So, again, shining light on these things at the point of people who are actually willing to do the hard work and address this problem, is a net benefit.

Is a silver lining, even though the backdrop. You know, we don't want people who actually need this, to go without food.

But, you know, it brings into question, the system. You can get people beans. You can get people rice. You can get people staples. And have them be well-fed in a fraction of the cost, that it's currently costing. And keep out the dodos and the candies and the people who just arrived here to take advantage of the system.

GLENN: Yeah. Carol, thank you. As always, God bless.

CAROL: Always a pleasure.

GLENN: You bet. Buh-bye. Carol Roth. She is just -- I just love Carol. I looked for somebody like Carol for a long time, that understood Wall Street, understood the banking, and then also understood Main Street. CarolRoth.com.

You can find her at the website. Carol Roth. Or follow her on X @CarolJSRoth.

Glenn's Show Prep

Stephen Crowder: Google Clearly Doesn’t ‘Want to Discuss Issues Anymore’

The next war won’t have soldiers—Just code and cold machines

Transcript

He Hunted SATANIST Mexican Cartels and SURVIVED | Dave Franke | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 272

“He’s killing it”: The truth about Trump’s 2028 power team

Transcript

Why Trump’s “BAILOUT” of Argentina is actually AMERICA FIRST

Transcript