BLOG

This Is Why Europe Is Vulnerable to Attacks Like Barcelona

Fourteen people were killed in two attacks in Spain Thursday, with 13 of them dying when a terrorist drove a van into crowds in Barcelona.

While police have arrested four people in connection with the attacks, the driver of the van is still at large after fleeing on foot. Authorities have identified 18-year-old Moussa Oukabir as the suspect, the Guardian reported based on Spanish media reports.

“This is the worst one since the 2004 attack,” Stu Burguiere said Friday on radio.

In 2004, 191 people were killed and nearly 2,000 were injured when terrorists detonated bombs on mobile phones in train stations in the Madrid area.

“Europe in and of itself is just very vulnerable to these things,” Stu noted, explaining how Europe’s more “lenient” border policies work.

PAT: It's Pat and Stu and Jeffy for the Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. Glenn is -- can we say where he is? Maybe not, huh?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: He's doing something with Operation Underground rescue today. So he'll be back on Monday.

But another terrible terrorist strike yesterday. This one in Barcelona, Spain. The same kind of thing. The vehicles used as weapons. Killed 14 people. Just another mass carnage. Bodies strewn all over the place. And, you know, it's just so senseless and so bizarre. And this seems to be their new thing. Even -- even over explosions.

STU: We're starting to probably hit that point, in which the vehicle barriers at street festivals need to seriously be increased.

JEFFY: All of them.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: I mean, because I think people -- whether -- obviously there's a low risk of something like this happening at any particular festival you're at. But when they block these streets off, these are the targets, a lot of times.

You know, in a bizarre way -- it's in a way kind of like the gun-free zone with the mass shootings. It's like you take out an area where there's any chance of traffic. And people just sort of -- you know, they're all gathered in one place where they all think they're safe. And when they all think they're safe, that's when people come that are bad actors. That's obviously not an argument against street festivals. But it is an argument for security at them, I think.

PAT: Definitely. I just heard this morning that they're going to ramp up security with vehicles in mind at the Texas State Fair next month. So they're already starting to do that. They're already taking that seriously.

STU: And people won't show up if these things keep happening. People are going to stop risking --

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Yeah. And that's the whole point, right? Of this kind of attack. You just want people to change their lifestyle. You want them to live in fear. You want to create terror. And they're doing a pretty good job of that.

So it would be -- they interviewed quite a few people who were just on vacation.

JEFFY: Yeah, this wasn't even just necessarily a street festival. This was a market where everybody gathers.

PAT: A lot of tourists.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: So can you imagine, you're just going to Barcelona, Spain, for a vacation. You're having a holiday there, and this kind of thing happens. It's just -- I mean, certainly it's no worse than the locals being killed. Because they're both bad.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: But it's just so senseless. And you just don't expect that.

STU: Yeah, that's the point I took from your comment. That it was worse than --

PAT: It's worse than the locals being killed?

JEFFY: And Americans were there on vacation.

STU: It is funny how we treat these things. The media -- like, I was watching Fox News when this was going on. And they went to report. They were like, "We have new information in that four NCAA basketball teams were playing in Spain at the time. All teams are okay." Okay. I don't know why that is relevant to this story, the fact that four --

PAT: It's the American angle, right?

STU: It is, I guess. And I'm not blaming Fox for that. I guess it is sort of interesting, particularly if you are a fan of one of the teams that is playing in that general vicinity. But the idea that -- like, three of the four teams have made a statement, and all three teams have said the same thing, that nothing happened.

Okay. I mean, it's probably -- there's probably something else in this story that you could cover at this particular moment. I'm just saying that it's possible that the basketball team, you know, being unharmed is not necessarily a story.

PAT: Right.

STU: Most people in the -- in the world were unharmed at that moment.

PAT: This does tend -- my wife and I -- I mean, we've wanted to go to Europe our whole lives. And I want to go to London. I'd love to go to Barcelona. I'd love to go to Rome. Love to go to France, even though the problem with France is the French.

(chuckling)

But I'd love to see it. I'd love to be there. I'd love to experience it. And now with all this stuff happening all the time, it does cause you to kind of wonder if you want to do that. Doesn't it? I mean, this is going to hurt tourism across the world.

STU: It is. And we're talking about a lot of people dead, a lot of people injured. I mean, the footage that you described earlier --

PAT: It was carnage.

STU: Did you notice a line that was different from other attacks, in which they showed a lot of just dead bodies on the street?

PAT: Yeah, they did. Yeah, they did.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: And they kept showing it over and over and over again. These were not people that were hurt. They were, I mean, motionless. No one is even tending to them. You know, it's not like -- when you have someone who is hurt and struggling, people rush over and try to help after one of these things. People were just walking by them, like this is over.

I mean, you know, a lot of people dead. A lot of gore. And they showed it for whatever reason, seemingly, without hesitance in this particular case. A lot of times they will -- you know, if you think of the clip in Charlottesville, right? Where one person died. They went to somewhat great lengths to not show you the actual person who died.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: The actual real carnage of that. They showed it from a distance. They showed parts of it. But this was really intense.

PAT: Up close and personal with all the carnage.

JEFFY: Maybe we do need to see it.

STU: There's an argument there. And I think a strong one. I don't know what you do here, right? Like, they were talking about this. There was this terrorism expert on that I was watching. And they're like, "Well, there's nothing you can do to stop these incidents. There's really no way to stop them." And that's true really about everything, right? Like there's nothing to stop someone walking up behind you with a water balloon full of red Kool-Aid and slapping it on the back of your head every time you walk down the street. The only reason it doesn't happen is because no one is interested in doing it, right? Anyone can do it to you at any time.

And that's the only way that this is going to eventually stop, hopefully. That eventually we get to a point in which people are not motivated by this thing. White supremacy, we've gone a long way in essentially eliminating. And it's a weird thing to say after Charlottesville. But it's pretty freaking notable when there's a Ku Klux Klan these days, just because generally speaking, people in the United States aren't interested in it. There's not a lot of people that want to be involved in that nonsense, so they're not, thankfully.

Right now, Islamic extremism, that's not the case. You know, there's a lot of people around the world who are really interested in it. And until that ideology is defeated, until that strain of -- of extremism is gone and people just don't want to do it -- look, Naziism is like that.

I mean, at one point, Naziism was, you know, the dominant viewpoint of a country, of multiple countries, when you throw fascism in there. And now, you know, there's a lot less interest in it thankfully around the globe, and we have a lot less Naziism.

That's the only way you do this, right? I mean, and I don't know how you do it with a group like Islamic extremism because it's so large. There's so many people that even if there's just an infinitesimal percentage of Islam that goes down this road, it's still almost impossible to stop.

PAT: You either stop it that way or by killing every single terrorist on the planet, which is difficult.

STU: Really difficult.

PAT: Very difficult.

STU: Well, look, that's how we approached Nazis, right? It wasn't like we were like, oh, you know what, actually, we don't agree with your universal health care plans. And that's why they HEP disputed Naziism. We did it with a bunch of bombs.

PAT: Yeah. Yes.

STU: Which is -- look, that's certainly part of it. But it's a lot harder here. When you talk about killing every terrorist, it's a lot difficult to figure out who those people are and how to do it. And we've seen attempts at that, certainly, in certain countries. And so far, there have been parts of it that have worked and parts of it that haven't. So, I mean, right now, ISIS is being pushed back. And we may wind up seeing ISIS go away, that part of it. But we also -- you could argue that parts of al-Qaeda have gone away and were replaced by ISIS, right? So it's such a difficult task to do this in any efficient way, especially without the support and really unified action of the world with the Nazis. You had a lot of that.

PAT: And the Islamic State has taken credit for this. The perpetrators of the Barcelona attack are soldiers of the Islamic State and carried out the operation in response to calls for targeting coalition states. I mean, is Spain really even heavily involved in the War on Terror?

JEFFY: With the open border campaigns in Europe, I mean, Spain, France, all of it, they're all -- I mean, that immigration process for the extremes -- you know, you said, you don't know who they are. Nobody knows who they are. So they're just there in those countries.

PAT: Right. But they don't seem to be -- they don't seem to be targeting the Sunni militant groups in Syria, certainly. They're not in Iraq. They're not in Afghanistan. Why Spain? Why are they targeting Spain?

STU: Well, yeah, Spain hasn't had a big attack in a while. 2004, they had a big attack. But it's been a while. This is the worst one since the 2004 attack. You know, I think --

PAT: That one killed 191 people. 191.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Wounded 1800. It was a huge attack.

STU: Huge. And just -- Europe, in and of itself is just very vulnerable to these things. They have -- a lot of them have very lenient, to say the least, immigration policies.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: No guns.

STU: There's very little to push back. There's also very free immigration, relatively speaking between the countries.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So even if you have a more restrictive policy on your border, when it comes to immigrants from the Middle East or whatever, they could come into a neighboring country and then across that border. So it becomes very difficult.

It would be like trying -- it would be like trying to figure out immigration among the 50 states. If we were constantly on the border trying to stop certain people going from Texas into Oklahoma. It would be really hard. And, you know, it's a little bit of an exaggeration, but it's that type of arrangement. And, you know, it's difficult.

PAT: It also looks like police have caught everybody, but the driver, right? That's the last I heard, was that the driver fled on foot. And he's still -- the actual driver of the van has gotten away. To this point.

STU: And it seems like it was a bigger plot. An explosion they think was tied to this. There was another attack they think was tied to this, through family members.

PAT: Yeah, apparently they thwarted another attack.

STU: And they thwarted another one overnight, right? With five people trying to attempt an attack, and they shot all five of them.

JEFFY: Yeah. In HEP Cambrio? HEP Cambrio, Spain. And they -- again, you talked about showing the footage. That footage immediately was all of them dead on the sidewalk, showing where police had shot them.

PAT: Oh, wow.

JEFFY: Last night. After they got them.

PAT: I had not seen that.

JEFFY: Yeah, they were: The suspects are dead. Police have shot them. And there they are.

It was amazing.

TV

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

RADIO

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

RADIO

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

TV

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.