BLOG

Here Are 3 Key Things the Left Doesn’t Understand About Gun Rights

We have to keep guns away from bad guys. It’s about “commonsense gun laws.” Why should everyone be able to freely buy automatic weapons?

On today’s show, Glenn and Stu talked about the ongoing gun control debate. Watch the clip (above) to hear their responses to some of the most common anti-gun talking points as they point out these key problems with the left’s arguments.

Many liberals trying to debate this issue don’t understand guns or realize what regulations are already in place. 

“It’s hard to have a debate on this topic when the overwhelming majority of people discussing it don’t have basic knowledge on the topic,” Stu said.

Guns are part of American culture.

People who didn’t grow up around guns simply don’t understand how why Americans want to arm themselves to feel safe.

“It is uniquely American … and you can’t just dismiss that,” Glenn said.

Constitutional rights should only be infringed upon when absolutely necessary. 

Second Amendment rights are constitutionally protected, so you can only keep someone from that basic right with due process and with evidence that they will misuse it. Stu compared it to our right in the justice system to be innocent until proven guilty.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: Amazing that they changed the voting age to 18. Because if you're old enough to get drafted, go to the military, well, then, of course, you should be able to vote. It's totally sensible idea. Although, I know Pat will come in later today and will tell us that the voting should be 35. On the other side of that, one of the things that 16-year-olds are pushing for is that you should not be able to own a firearm until you're 21. So you would be able to get drafted to the military, to use a firearm in the military, but not own one for your own protection at home.

It's a fascinating thing to think about. And I don't think the right one. I don't think the right one. Again, we don't make -- you know, 16-year-olds --

GLENN: How many great decisions did you make as a 16-year-old?

STU: Well, me. Obviously lots of great ones. But most people don't.

Of course not. You're not seasoned enough. And you don't understand these issues enough. Beyond that, like, if you're 50 years old -- we've seen this before. Well, let's go to the 50-year-old parent or grandparent of one of these kids who was killed. And they'll come out with their gun -- their gun solution for America.

You don't make policy based on the victims of a tragedy.

GLENN: No.

STU: You don't become an expert in the topic because something terrible happened to you.

I -- for example, my dad died of a heart attack. I don't go to hospitals and tell them to do their heart surgery with spoons. That's not -- I don't have any extra credibility on the topic because I was involved in a tragedy in my family.

GLENN: Now, you could take that tragedy and become a scholar on it.

STU: Right.

GLENN: You could say, I'm going to learn everything I can. I'm just tired of having a discussion of the Second Amendment, with people who do not know what a gun is. They've never fired it. They don't know -- they've never been around it. They've never been around people who are responsible gun owners.

I don't -- if you don't take the time to really learn what the gun is and can really talk to me about the truth of the Constitution, the Constitution and the Second Amendment was not about sporting. It wasn't.

It was about people being able to take up arms against an out-of-control government. Now, you can say, well, that's -- they're never going to get out of control. Or, well, they get out of control, they're just going to use tanks.

Well, yes. But every single time there has been a dictator, the first thing they do is take away all weapons from the people. And then they slaughter them.

At least give us a fighting chance.

STU: Yeah, as we pointed out, the mass shooting -- Vegas was the worst mass shooting in history. No. First of all, the worst mass shooting in that context was Norway. But beyond that, the top 100,000 mass shootings all came from governments against unarmed populace. You think there was a day that went by in World War II, where the Nazis didn't kill 58 people? I don't think there was a day that went by, where the communists didn't kill 58 people.

GLENN: Their own citizens.

STU: Yeah, their own citizens. This was a light day for all of these governments when there was no way to push back against them. And, you know, look, that's why it was designed. It's used for personal protection, as well as a massive -- you know, it's the main reason for it now. Of course, hunting is part of it. And all of that is a part of it.

But it's not about those individual things. It's about you being able to utilize that right in the way that you see fit, without violating other's rights. But, again, I think when you talk about gun knowledge, it is important.

You can get into the weeds a little bit too much. But listen to this, this comes from the statesman journal. This is a letter to the editor they decided to print: Every killer needs three things, an evil mindset, an opportunity, and the means to carry out their plan. Break that chain, and you've stopped a killer.

It's hard to know a person's ever changing mindset and opportunity is everywhere. That leaves means. Prevent future killings from obtaining the automatic weapon, and you've stopped a mass killing.

Yes, other weapons can kill too. But none are so deadly as an automatic rifle. We know what doesn't work, prayer doesn't work. It might make us feel better and make the survivors feel better. But it doesn't stop the next shooting. Blame the NRA doesn't work either. They don't pass any laws and can't regulate their industry. A good guy with a gun doesn't work.

This Florida school had two on-duty police officers assigned to it, which is something else we should discuss. But banning automatic weapons, you will not stop any mass killings -- and you will stop many mass killings. Excuse me.

And at the same time, you'll be protecting the most basic right our Constitution has to offer: the right to life.

GLENN: Can I just point out a couple of things?

STU: Is there a minor issue?

GLENN: We have banned automatic weapons.

STU: Oh.

GLENN: Yeah, so.

STU: Again, it's hard to have a debate on this topic, when the overwhelming majority of discussing it don't have basic knowledge on the topic. That is a difficult thing to do. You don't need to know everything about a gun.

GLENN: No.

STU: You don't need to be a gun nerd to have these conversations. But you have to know the basics.

GLENN: You have to have the basic knowledge. And, quite honestly, you -- I think -- look, I can understand people who have never grown up around guns. I can understand it. I can understand people who are afraid of guns because they never had any experiences with them.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they grew up, let's say even in a city, where you grew up in New York. I understand that. Now, can you understand that every time you talk about a gun being something bad, I feel my grandfather. I remember holding his hand with his gun, underneath his arm, as we walked every night on the back of our farm.

I mean, it is --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: It was a feeling of safety.

STU: Part of culture.

GLENN: And culture. We didn't have bad experiences with guns. Because we respected them.

So it's part of the culture.

It's not part of your culture. That's okay.

But it is uniquely American, at least in the center of the country. And you can't just dismiss that.

STU: You can't. And it's amazing to watch cable news hosts be fascinated by the fact that we just can't do something. Every time there's another one of these attacks.

And what do we do? We don't do anything. And they miss the basic separation of the way these two things are coming together. The reason you don't get, quote, unquote, common sense middle ground gun control.

GLENN: Because you're not going for it.

STU: Well, first of all, they're not going for it. And every conservative looks at that, and reflexes immediately because they feel --

GLENN: The dog whistle.

STU: Yeah, they feel you're going after their guns. And many times, you've admitted that you are.

GLENN: Yes. Eric Holder.

STU: Yeah.

Australia, for example. Every time we bring up the word Australia, what you're saying is you want to take 30 percent of the guns out of the country. So how do you think that a gun owner would feel about that?

But the bottom line, the basic thing is, even on these minor things, progressives, liberals, the left, look at guns as something that is inherently dangerous. And, therefore, we should stop every person from getting one, unless we're sure that they're going to use it safely.

On the other side, conservatives, Libertarians, look at guns as constitutionally protected. Therefore, only if you're sure the person isn't going to use them safely, do we take them away. With extreme mental health. Or, you know, convictions in the past and domestic violence and things like that.

So that expression, there's a lot of middle ground between those two positions. But there's almost no room to compromise between them.

You know, it's the idea of saying, if one side of the argument is, look, people are innocent until proven guilty. And the other people on the other side are saying, people are guilty until proven innocent.

Well, there's a lot of middle ground between those two positions. But there's no place to compromise. There's not an innocent until proven innocent place in the middle that you can come together.

Right? It doesn't make any sense. The positions don't work together. And, of course, I fully 100 percent believe their conservative position is right. They're constitutionally protected. And you can't just start grabbing them from everybody.

GLENN: No.

STU: That's why the example they always bring up is, we couldn't even ban terrorists on the terrorist watch list from getting guns. That shows how irrational conservatives are.

No. It shows that conservatives understand this is a constitutionally protected right. And just because someone has made a list with a name on it, without any due process, without any evidence being presented, without any -- tons and tons of mistakes. You can't take away a constitutionally protected right because of that. We would never do that with the First Amendment.

We would never do that with any of these amendments. They're all too important to us. And we all understand them. The Second Amendment has just become this issue that the left throws around to get donations. And there are a lot of honest people who are on Facebook or on Twitter who are tauting these things. Like, the NRA is donating money, and they're controlling the debate. There's been 18 school shootings.

GLENN: It's not.

STU: They're being used by the left leadership who don't want to do anything to protect these victims. Because they like this issue. They like the issue far too much.

And obviously they don't want people to die. Nobody does. But they see this -- they could take steps that are unrelated to gun control, that the right would go along with. But they're in a period here, where conservatives have -- or at least the Republicans have the House, the Senate, and the presidency. Your time to pass wide swaths of gun control was probably when you had all three of those and you didn't do it.

Now you don't have any of them. You're not going to get that through right now. If you could focus on things that could actually help, that you could work together, there would be a middle place there. You know, it's just not about gun control.

GLENN: Well, because nobody is -- truly, nobody is trying to help. Nobody is trying to solve this. Nobody.

STU: It's depressing. It really is.

GLENN: It is. They're not trying to solve it. All they're trying to do is win. We lose once we decided we must win. And everybody is just trying to win. And I don't mean win the Constitution. I mean, you're just trying to win the next election. It doesn't matter.

You just want verbal ammunition that you can spray the other side with when it comes election time.

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.