Will Your Children Even Need a Drivers License?

So long DMV! It's been swell, but your time has passed. At least, that will be the case for most children or grandchildren coming of age today. Self-driving cars are the way of the future.

Yesterday, Faraday Future unveiled its first electric car --- the FF91 --- at the 2017 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, calling it a new species that reformats the future. The unveiling included a demo of the driverless car finding a parking spot and slipping easily into an open space.

"They move the car in this loaded parking lot in the fifth slot, fourth row --- or whatever it was --- and then they have a guy drive up with a Faraday to the doors of the building. He takes out his phone, pushes the Faraday app and pushes park. A little light, where the hood ornament used to go on cars, a little round circle lights up on the car which tells people it's driverless now. It starts slowly --- with traffic, driving around it --- and it searches each row for a parking space, finds it, backs in, three-point turn and shuts itself off. Pretty incredible," Glenn said.

The world is changing and will operate in an entirely different way for future generations.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 1 for answers to these questions:

• What did Faraday do in the 1800s to get children interested in science?

• What patent did Uber recently receive?

• What role will cars play for the next generation?

• How are manufacturing jobs like cotton picking?

• How do you stop civil unrest in a jobless society?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

 

Featured Image: Faraday Future's Nick Sampson, SVP of R&D + Engineering speaks in front of the just introduced FF91 electric vehicle at the company's press conference at the 2017 Consumer Electronics Show (CES2017) in Las Vegas, Nevada, on January 3, 2017. (Photo Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images)

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Agonizing statements that everybody at least on the right remembers. Nancy Pelosi made the statement when they passed Obamacare, she said, "Don't worry, now if you want to be a poet, you can be a poet. If you want to be a painter, you can now be a painter and not have to worry about it."

There is a big idea behind what sounds crazy, giving people free money. The world is changing. We want to talk about that.

And the new Faraday car that is supposed to be better than the Tesla car. Tesla and Faraday, two of the most important scientists of the 1800s and early 1900s at battle again. Tesla versus Faraday. Faraday was just launched yesterday. They showed this new car that was supposed to be better than the Tesla. They launched it yesterday in Vegas. We'll tell you about that.

But at the same time, Tesla pat end something that will change your driving life and the life of your children may never drive. If they are ten -- if they are five or ten, chances are they never, ever get something called a driver's license. The good news: The DMV is no longer part of our life. We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the program. So glad that you're here.

We have to talk also about Megyn Kelly. Megyn Kelly is going to NBC. The talk of Megyn Kelly online is absolutely phenomenal. And I just -- I want to say this, then we're going to come back to Megyn Kelly. She's being called a traitor for going to NBC. May I ask, when did we raise our hand or put our hand over our heart to pledge allegiance to Fox?

How can you possibly be a traitor to your country by working for NBC? Do you think maybe we've blown this out of proportion just a little bit?

We'll get to that in just a little while.

Also, I do want to have a conversation about Julian Assange today. We want to touch on that. Sean Hannity came yesterday. He says he has evolved on Julian Assange, where he stands on Julian Assange, as we still stand. We have questioned him from the very beginning.

I don't like his tactics. I don't -- I don't think stealing documents from the United States government is a good idea, although like I have said since the beginning of Edward Snowden: I'm not convinced he's a traitor. I just don't like the way he did it. If he wouldn't have left the United States and he would have been willing to stand trial, then I believe that it was -- it would have been easier for me to stand by him.

Going to Russia and you have to -- you know, it's he said/she said. I don't know. But I'm glad he released the things that he did. I just don't trust him.

Sean Hannity met with Julian Assange. And he has been spending quite a bit of time with him lately on the phone, et cetera, et cetera. Says he has a new understanding of him and believes, quote, every word he says, end quote.

It's an interesting transition, and I'd love to get into that. And here's some of the words that Julian Assange said. I will tell you, watching a piece of the interview, looking into his eyes like people look into Puti-Put's eyes, looking into his eyes, it looks like he was telling the truth. Does it matter? Coming up in just a minute.

Also, oh, my gosh, Dan Rather has said that the media has got to call out Donald Trump on lies, and they can't say that he misspoke. They can't say that he wasn't artful. They must call it a lie. Coming from Dan Rather. Unbelievable.

We'll get to that.

Let me start with -- let me start with Faraday because it's kind of fun. The new Faraday car has come out.

Faraday is a really interesting -- really interesting scientist. And I -- it's been a long time since I've read this, so I'm just pulling it out of my butt. So my apologies to anybody who is a big fan of Faraday for butchering this.

Faraday, they used to have over in England -- I don't remember what it was called. The London Science Society, or whatever it was. They would have a lecture every Christmas Eve, and they would invite children to come in. And they would try to do something to engage children into the world of science. Faraday did something on his Christmas Eve address on the candle. And he explained the scientific properties of a candle.

And this swept not only London, but Europe and parts of the United States. This is about 1860, or so. Please, my apologies for butchering this. But it swept and captured the minds of a lot of children in the 1800s.

It was something that ignited their imagination and got them interested in science itself.

Faraday, for all of the things that he has furthered in science, Faraday is a guy who I think we need more of today. And I think this new car named Faraday and Tesla, Elon Musk, I think they're on the right step. They are igniting people's imaginations.

Yesterday, in Vegas, they're having a big electronics show. I couldn't get my wife to -- I couldn't convince my wife that this was a good anniversary weekend in Vegas. For some reason, she thought that would be more about me and not about us. But they were having this big science and electronics show on the future. And they just released the Faraday car, which the Faraday car is the FF91. I've never even heard of it. Have you guys heard of it?

JEFFY: No.

PAT: No.

GLENN: I didn't even know this thing was being built. It looks pretty good. It doesn't look as good as a Tesla. It's not quite as sexy as a Tesla.

JEFFY: Pretty cool.

GLENN: But it is pretty cool. Go ahead.

JEFFY: No, I just -- it's pretty cool. It looks a lot better than I thought it would.

GLENN: How does it look better than you thought --

JEFFY: Because I hadn't seen it.

GLENN: You just told me 30 seconds ago you had never even heard of it.

JEFFY: No. I know. I had not seen it. And Pat Gray earlier said, "It's not as cool as a Tesla." And so I thought, "Oh, it's got to be kind of ugly." When I just brought up the photo, it's not bad. I'm not sure what I had in my head, but it wasn't as cool as it is.

GLENN: Thank you. All right. Good. Thank you.

(chuckling)

Appreciate it.

PAT: That was an important explanation.

GLENN: It was.

JEFFY: He started it.

PAT: It was important.

GLENN: No, it was a good comment.

God help us, when does Stu come back? Seriously.

PAT: I don't know. I don't know.

GLENN: He's got the sniffles. He's got the sniffles and he's out for two days.

Anyway, so the Faraday car comes out, and they -- they take it out to the parking lot, and they have people in the audience that say, "Somebody in the audience pick a row." And the guy says, you know, "Third row. Pick a slot." Somebody else says, "Fifth slot."

Great. They move the car in this loaded parking lot in the fifth slot, fourth row, or whatever it was. And then they have a guy drive up with a Faraday to the doors of the building, and then he takes out his phone and he pushes the Faraday app and pushes park.

A little light where the hood ornament used to go on cars, a little round circle lights up on the car which tells people it's driverless now.

And it goes and it starts to slowly -- with traffic, driving around it, it slowly goes and it searches each row for a parking space, finds it, backs in, three-point turn, and shuts itself off.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Pretty incredible.

PAT: Yeah, that's cool. That's cool.

GLENN: Pretty incredible.

Now, here's what -- here's what I thought of when I saw this, was the light on the front.

And the reason why I thought of the light on the front is because of what Tesla has just pat end. Your world is completely going to change. The light on the front is telling people this is a driverless car and there is no driver in the car.

Tesla just patented something, and let me see if I can get it. I'm sorry. No, no, no. It's not Tesla. It's Uber. Uber just patented a light-up sign to go on top of cars.

Now, this is a sheet of glass that is about -- you know, plexiglass -- about the size -- length of the back door of a car. All right?

So it goes on the back half, kind of like the taxi sign, you know, goes, except it's going from hood to tail. Instead of from door-to-door, hood to tail. Takes up about half of the back of the car.

And what it is, is just a sheet of plexiglass. But the plexiglass can change color, and the -- when you say I want an Uber car, you can design how it's supposed to light up.

So I want a triangle. I want a circle. I want three triangles. I want a triangle, a circle, and a square.

And you push that in. And so then when you're standing outside waiting for your car or you walk outside looking for your car, you know you're the circle, circle, triangle, square. Okay? And it lights up.

Now, that makes it easy for you to find the car, but it also is moving us in the direction of -- are you here for Beck? You no longer have to ask because soon there will be no one in the car because it will be driverless. Which brings me back to Tesla.

If you buy a Tesla car today as of 2017, there is a line now in the contract that says, "You kind of don't really own the car outright. Yes, it is your car. You can do everything you want. You can drive it over a cliff if you want to. The one thing you cannot do is turn it into a taxi service." Why? Because Tesla has a longer term plan.

Tesla's cars -- Tesla cars are now being built -- and as you know, it's all software updates.

So he's -- Elon Musk is really brilliant. He's gone back to the ideas of Henry Ford. Henry Ford said, "You can have every color you want as long as it's black." And if you remember, he only made the Model T and then the Model A. And if I'm not mistaken, and somebody look this up for me real quick, I don't believe you could buy the Model T and the Model A. You could only buy one or the other, I think.

What he was trying to do was build a car -- because he was really, really frugal. He was really nuts. I really dislike Henry Ford.

But if you worked for Henry Ford, you couldn't buy one of his cars. If you worked at the Ford factory, you would think that you would get a special discount. No, no, no, if you wanted to buy one of his cars, you had to schedule a meeting with Henry Ford. And he would come in and say, "I want to see all of your paperwork. I want to see your books at home. I want to make sure that you don't have debt. I want to make sure that you're living a life that is not -- that's not going to put you over the barrel."

So you had to get permission from Papa Ford to buy one. But he also built the cars to be interchangeable so you would only buy one in your lifetime. You would buy a Model T, and then anything -- any update, you could just buy the update and put that on the car so you would never have to worry -- it's the exact opposite of what cars did back then.

Uber has just picked this up with the software updates. But the new software update that is in the contract today is mind-blowing to even think about. One of the big ideas of the day. We'll get to that here coming up in just a second.

First, let me tell you about our sponsor this half-hour. It's Zip Recruiter. Zip Recruiter, we have -- you know, everybody tells me that my company is collapsing. In fact, it was supposed to be out of business -- no, it was two years ago. Then a year ago. Then by the end of summer. And then definitely by the 1st of December. But it's crazy bad. In fact, we're still hiring. If you would like to work for this failing company, you can -- you can just go and apply.

Anyway, Zip Recruiter, we have -- because we made major changes at the company, we let I think about 100 people go. Somewhere in that area. And we've hired now I think 110 people back, different people. We've had to use Zip Recruiter -- I mean, we were looking for a new HR person. We were looking for, you know, our new accounting people. How do we find them when you don't have the staff to be able to do it?

It's a small business problem. But big businesses use Zip Recruiter just as effectively and at just the same rate that we do as a small business. When you are looking to hire somebody, you need it to be easy and simple.

Posting your job on one place isn't enough to find the quality job candidates. But do you have time to post to 100-plus job sites? Because I don't. Do you have time to read through them all, sort them all? Do you have an easy way to do it?

Zip Recruiter is your answer. One post lists all of the job sites. Then when they come in, you can easily categorize and you don't have to worry about the phone calls. You don't have to worry about any of it. It all comes into one place. It's easy for you to hire the right person fast.

Try it out now for free by going to Zip Recruiter, slash, Beck. That's ZipRecruiter.com/Beck. ZipRecruiter.com/Beck. Try it for free now.

[break]

GLENN: I tell you, the -- what Tesla is doing should be a wake-up call to everyone. And this ties into something else that I want to share with you. There's a new report out that says that routine jobs are getting faced out. You will not believe the percentage of routine jobs.

These are the jobs that Donald Trump just saved with Carrier. The kind of stuff that's assembly line. They are disappearing fast, and they're not coming back.

And people are just stopping to look for work. They can't find any work. We'll talk about that because this plays into it on how much your life is going to change and what Finland is starting to do to look into something that I think is grossly misunderstood by a lot of people.

Hats off, actually, to Finland for trying this, if indeed this is what they're trying to solve. But we'll get into that in a second. I want to tell you what Tesla is doing to show you the entrance of where your life is going to change and how it's going to change.

If you went and bought a Tesla today, in the new contract starting in 2017, there was one line that said you can do anything you want to do with your car, but you cannot use it as a taxi service. And the reason why is because they believe this is the future. And they are going to maintain partial rights to your car because I believe Tesla is going to come out with their own service that will put your car to work for you.

If you -- I was talking to the guy -- what's the competition of Uber? It's Lyft. I was talking to the guy who is the founder of Lyft. And his daughter was 18 years old. And he said -- now he -- this is the reason he started Lyft. One of the reasons he started Lyft.

He said, "Honey, you know, you're 18. You don't even have your driver's license ready yet. You're getting ready to go. You need to get a driver's license." And she said, "Why would I get a driver's license, Dad? That's ridiculous. I don't need a driver's license. I'll just call for an Uber."

He realized that cars are not playing the role to the next generation the way they've always played a role for us, where we've dreamt about our first car and we couldn't get our first car. And it was a status symbol and everything else.

Now people just want to get around. And they don't see the reason of owning the liability.

Tesla is now starting something in the future. The first line in the contract is there to set you up, that when you take your car -- you buy a Tesla. In the future, near future, I believe, they will start offering something and say, "Look, not only is this car effective on miles per gallon, you know, because it doesn't have any. But not only is it cheap or inexpensive, but it will also earn money for you." When you go to work, you'll be able to put it on auto, and somebody who is calling for a car -- your car will leave the carport or leave the parking space, and it will go pick them up, take them to the airport, pick somebody else up. While you're working your eight-hour day, it will be out working and making money for you. And then you say it's got to be back in its space by 4 o'clock. That's when I need my car. It will go park itself back in the space and alert you where it is so you can make money instead of just having that car a liability for you.

That is the future. And that's the way car owners -- car companies are trying to look at the future. And lo and behold, the big three. I don't even think they're on this page yet. It's going to come faster than you think.

Now, what does this mean for your job? I'll tell you coming up.

[break]

GLENN: All right. Let me give you two stories. First one, there's a new report out, new study conducted by three economists that say, "As many routine jobs disappear that require repeating a narrow set of repeated tasks -- so, in other words, these are assembly line jobs.

The workers in those jobs, as they lose those jobs have opted for lower paying, low skill manual work or just stopped working.

Okay. This -- this is -- this is a problem on many fronts. First of all, we should not be looking for manufacturing jobs, you know, and trying to keep the manufacturing jobs here in the United States. We cannot compete.

And this is something that I said probably ten years ago when George Bush -- probably, wow, 12 years ago, when George W. Bush was talking about the open borders et cetera, et cetera. And I said at the time, "Look, you know -- what was -- what was the -- what was it? Transamericanada or Meximericanada (phonetic). Remember that, Pat?

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Where they were talking about the new currency that would be -- what was it? Meximericanada?

PAT: The Amero is what the currency was.

GLENN: Yeah, the Amero. That's what it was. The currency was the Amero.

And I was trying to remember -- I was trying to think, "How can you possibly do that?" Canada and the United States maybe, because they're -- they're similar in their value. But the peso, there's no way you can bring the peso in. How are you going to bring Mexico up with the United States dollar?

You can't. So the idea behind the Amero got me thinking, "Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If you're going to try to do one world currency or one currency for North America, you can't bring everybody up to the standard of America. You have to bring everybody down. You have to bring America down to the standard of Mexico. You've got to meet at best somewhere in the middle because no way you can bring the rest of the world up to us. You have to bring us down and destroy everybody's currency."

Now, that was 12 years ago.

Now we're still -- still talking and living as if it's 1950 or 1980 or even 1985. It is not. And the world is changing.

So these jobs are going away, and they're going to be replaced not only in China, but they will be replaced, for instance -- what wasn't said about the Donald Trump Carrier deal until after was the president of Carrier said, "Well, look, we can't keep Americans at these jobs. They don't want these jobs."

And what happens is, they will -- it's almost like kids -- when we were kids, you know, our summer job was berry picking. The minute you could get away from berry picking, you did. Nobody was like, "I'm going to be a berry picker and the best berry picker ever." Nobody was -- nobody was dreaming for the berry picking job, except those who didn't have a job.

As soon as you got something better, you got out of the fields. That's the way an assembly line job is. And in America, it is the entry-level, and you're out as soon as you can be.

In Mexico, those jobs are coveted. They want those jobs. So Carrier doesn't have a problem with retraining people because they'll stay sometimes for life. It's more like working in Detroit in the 1940s and '50s. You wanted that job, and you could work on the assembly line for the rest of your life.

That's the way those jobs are looked at overseas. So it's not just about the low pay. It's not about the benefits. It's not about, you know, the EPA standards or the OSHA standards. It's also about the mentality of the people.

And if you're trying to build something, you don't want -- you don't want people on the assembly line that are just looking at this job as a dolt job. You want somebody who is excited to come into work, to do it, to do it right, and to help your business streamline and grow.

You can't find that, according to Carrier, here in America. So what happened?

Well, this deal was made to keep 1,000 jobs in America, but about three days after the deal was announced, the Carrier president came out and said, "By the way, we're going to use some of this money to put robotics in because this is a long-term problem." So this isn't about Carrier, this is just to use this example as, this is what's going to happen in all of those jobs. Robots and robotics will change everything.

If you think that it won't, look at what Google is doing. Look at what Google is doing right now. Why do you have Google for free? We talked about this yesterday.

You have Google for free because they're trying to come up with artificial intelligence. They're trying to map the human mind.

And that's why your search engine is free. Because they're getting something more valuable from this deal than you are. They're mapping the way the human brain thinks.

So in our lifetime, I believe by 2030, artificial intelligence will be everywhere. That's the year -- 2030 is the expected arrival date of what's called transhumanism. Man and machine merging.

So these jobs are going to become less and less popularity. They will be literally the cotton picking jobs of the 1800s.

So they're gone. But they also say by 2050 -- what is it, 70 percent -- 50 or 70 percent of all jobs will turn over.

So 50 to 70 percent of all of us who are together right now, we will lose our job or we will get out of our job. Fifty to 70 percent. Because that job will no longer exist. Now, that's going to happen in the next 30 years. Think of that.

By the way, just to give you an idea: We're 15 or -- we're 16 years away now from September 11th.

So in -- in double the amount of time that we've had since September 11th, that's how much time we have left now on losing anywhere from 30 to 60 percent or 70 percent of all jobs.

So nobody is thinking about this. The politicians are all just talking about, I'm going to save jobs, I'm going to save jobs. You can't save jobs. In fact, you don't want to save jobs. You want to innovate. By saving jobs, you're going to hurt innovation.

What you have to be thinking is leapfrog thinking. You have to be thinking about the big idea. What do people do when they don't have to do that manual labor? What do they have to do when -- instead of saying, "I'm going to save taxi jobs by taxing Uber or by taxing Tesla and a self-driving or banning the self-driving cars from allowing them to go out and be used as a taxi service because I got to save those jobs" -- that's not the future. The future is encourage Tesla to be able to make this and to make it easy for them to get rid of the taxi driver jobs.

Well, wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense. It does if you believe in people. And this is the big question that we have to answer in the next 20 years, maybe the next ten: Do we actually believe in people?

Now, I'm going to tell you a story that is really pretty outrageous. Man, is it that time already?

A really outrageous story that is coming out of Finland that I want you to look -- I want to look at it in a completely different way.

If I told you -- and this is true, Finland has just launched an experiment giving 2,000 people free money until 2019, what would you say?

Pat. Finland giving free money away. Your gut reaction. They're getting rid of Social Security and welfare and everything else. They're just giving everybody else a check for I think it's $549 a month. And they're just -- 590 a month. And they're just giving these people $590 a month. That's a living wage for doing absolutely nothing for the next two years.

PAT: They'll continue to do nothing for the next two years. I mean, they're -- and plus, they're not -- they're not getting rid of Social Security, right? They're not getting rid of the other Social Security programs. This is in addition to them.

GLENN: No, hang on. For these 2,000 people, that covers everything. The problem over in Finland apparently is, if you are on Social Security, if you are on employment, there's like -- I don't remember how many -- there's like 400 different categories, and each of them have to be calculated differently. Each of them are the responsibility of the individual. And if you get -- if you miss -- you mischeck a box, you can lose everything. And it's constantly changing. So it -- what they're trying to do is get rid of all the bureaucracy, get rid of -- for 2,000 people, they're doing an experiment. Get rid of all the bureaucracy and just give people a flat check for 590 a month.

What do you think will happen?

PAT: I think those people will continue to do nothing.

GLENN: And why do you say that?

PAT: Because that's human nature, is when you're taken of, you continue to rely on the government.

GLENN: Okay. I happen to agree with you. I happen to agree with you. However, there's new studies -- now, this is not a study from First World countries. These are studies from Second and Third World countries.

New studies that are out, and it's very little evidence. They're very early in this because there are people like Y Combinator and Silicon Valley that are doing experiments on this themselves.

Because what they're trying to figure out is, when nobody has a job, you can't find a job, A, how do we stop society from going into civil unrest because they have no job? B, will people start their own business?

In America, if you start -- and I shouldn't say this. In some states and in much of the first world, if you start your own business -- I go out of business, I can't collect unemployment. Because I own my own business. So there's no safety net for me.

I'm penalized for doing what the capitalist system is telling us to do. Go out, start your own business, have an idea, work with it. I don't have a safety net.

If I go out of business, you get unemployment, but I don't. This takes away that fear. And they're finding in Third and Second World countries that if you give people a basic bottom-of-the-line income, that they -- there's a percentage -- and I don't know what the percentage is yet, and I don't know if they know. But there is a percentage that will go out and now create jobs because they are free to be able to think differently.

That's the idea, the concept behind some of these experiments. I'm not sure about Finland. They do -- they do talk about it in the stories that I've read. But I know that Y Combinator in Silicon Valley is the leader on this, and that is what they're really focused on is: How do we stop society from going into civil unrest, which is a conversation we have to have? And, B, can you get people in America who are used to just getting everything for free basically, having their own way? Can you get them to change their attitudes towards this? Not about giving free money away, but receiving it and not just sitting on the couch. And doing that at the same time you have virtual reality.

Imagine the number of people who have $590, which is enough to pay for -- in Finland, enough to pay for your food, enough to pay for a small little apartment, or whatever it is. You can survive one person on 590 a month. Now, maybe get a part-time job so I can afford the gaming system. Am I going to just sit on my couch and live a virtual reality world and do nothing, or am I going to go out and get another job and improve my life? That's a question we have to answer.

Finland is starting it. And it will be interesting to watch what they find.

And now, this: My -- My Patriot Supply.

Let me -- before I give you My Patriot Supply. Let me tell you what happened with bitcoin yesterday. Bitcoin is up now 16 percent in the first day of trading for the new year. 16 percent.

As of the end of August of last year, the up -- no, I'm sorry. By the beginning of September, yeah, it was up 90 percent. As of yesterday, from the beginning of 2016, it's up 123 percent. Why do you think that's happening?

Because people know tough times are coming. People know, "I'm not sure this system is going to last." My Patriot Supply wants you to make -- this is better than a resolution, make a commitment to be self-reliant. My Patriot Supply is standing by to help you right now, and this week you can get their 72-hour food kit for ten bucks. Three days of food for $10. It lasts up to 25 years. For $40, you can get a family of four to have your three-day -- now, this is what the Department of Homeland Security recommends that you have. I know it's crazy conspiracy theories to think -- the government is telling you, you should have three days' worth of food.

You can fulfill the basic minimum and get started on being self-reliant this week. Ten dollars for an emergency 72-hour kit. Call 800-200-9031. 800-200-9031. Go to prepare with Glenn. Double N. PreparewithGlenn.com. Limit four per order. 800-200-9031. PreparewithGlenn.com.

[break]

GLENN: We need to continue this conversation because I want to make it really clear: I'm not advocating for a universal government payment.

PAT: It almost sounded like you were advocating that.

JEFFY: Yes, it did.

GLENN: No, no, no. I specifically talk about Y Combinator is doing this. We have to think about these things. I don't think it will work in First World countries. And, again, the evidence is very scarce in Third World countries, but it is emerging evidence from Third World countries that it is working that way.

We have to talk about the bigger picture, which is a, you know, 40 to 70 percent job turnover and job elimination in the next 30 years. What does that mean for society? And how do we rethink what we're doing? I am definitely not for government handouts by any stretch of the imagination. It's Finland. Let me them do whatever they want. We should never be engaged in that. But private corporations should be thinking about this. And we should be talking about it as people. And I want to talk about that, when we come back.

Also, Megyn Kelly -- Kelly, and Dan Rather lecturing us on honesty.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.