GLENN: I want to share something with you that is going to sound absolutely crazy, much more crazy than when I said, "We're going to be able to print everything. We're going to be able to print organs. We're going to be able to print guns." Remember when I brought the 3D printer on about four years ago, and we were printing little stupid things.
And I remember -- I don't remember who it was, one of the cameramen, it was Justin, right? One of the cameramen was on, and he just shook his head. And I printed a little Batman head for him. And he was like, this is ridiculous. We're not going to be able to print these things. Okay. Sci-fi, and we're going to get flying cars too.
And a year later, we had a guy on the show who gave us a printed -- 3D printed gun that works.
The world is changing. And what this is going to sound like is, you're either a Luddite and you don't want technology -- which is not true. I don't think there's any way to stop this. I think Elon Musk is right on his approach. Or it just sounds so like a movie, like terminator, that you're fighting robots.
And I want you to know that you shouldn't fear the robots. That's not what I'm saying. I want you to hear a story that is on Elon Musk and his billion dollar crusade to stop the AI apocalypse. That's the headline.
It starts with a story that I gave you yesterday in hour number one of this broadcast. And it's Elon Musk. And it's Demis -- Demis, what's his name? Hassabis. And Demis and Elon are having lunch at SpaceX. And Elon says, "I'm working on -- this is the most important project for all of humanity, right now." His trip to Mars. Pat doesn't even think that trip to Mars is going to happen.
PAT: Uh-uh.
GLENN: It will. I'm telling you now, we will colonize Mars. And it won't be done by a government. It will be done by Elon Musk. And here's why: Demis says, "No, you're not working on the most important project. I am." Now, he's in charge of DeepMind. DeepMind is the Google project that is gobbling up every -- everybody who is working on AI. Artificial, super intelligence. And they are racing -- Google and DeepMind are racing to artificial intelligence.
Now, artificial intelligence is going to be fantastic. We will -- through artificial intelligence, we're going to be able to figure out cures to cancer. It's so far beyond any supercomputer. It will be able to learn itself. You won't have to program. You won't have to build. It will build itself. It will teach itself.
It's true artificial intelligence. It is living intelligence. And it will be so far -- we will look like mice to this intelligence.
He said -- Demis said, "Well, no, no, I'm working on the most important project for humankind. I'm working on artificial super intelligence." And that's when Elon Musk said, "No, the reason why I'm going to Mars is to make sure there's a human outpost because you're going to get us all killed."
Now, as crazy as that sounds, these conversations are happening. And they're happening a lot in Silicon Valley, with some of the smartest people out there. People who agree with Elon Musk, that this could be the end of all humanity, within the next 40 years, are Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking and a long list of others. But those are pretty prominent guys.
So if you read the story -- let me just give you a couple of them: Some in Silicon Valley were intrigued to learn that Hassabis, a skilled chess player and former video game designer once came up with a game called Evil HEP Genius, featuring an evil scientist who creates a doomsday device to achieve world domination.
Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist Donald Trump adviser, who cofounded PayPal with Musk and others and who in December helped gather skeptical Silicon Valley titans, including Musk to meet with Donald Trump, told me a story about an investor in DeepMind, who joked as he left a meeting, quote, does anybody else feel like we ought to shoot Hassabis now because we're approaching our last chance to save the human race?
Elon Musk began warning about the possibility of AI running amuck three years ago. Probably hadn't eased his mind when one of Hassabis' partners in DeepMind, Shane Lang stated flatly, "I think human extinction will probably occur, and this technology will play a part in it."
Okay. So wait. Wait. Shouldn't we put the brakes on that? If somebody said that in your office and other great minds around the world were saying the same thing, wouldn't it be time for you to say, "Hey, guys, can we just stop for a second?"
STU: I oddly do work in an office where someone does say that fairly regularly, just to points that out.
PAT: You do? Where's that? Weird.
STU: I don't know.
GLENN: Before DeepMind was gobbled up by Google in 2014 as part of its Google AI shopping spree, Musk had been an investor in DeepMind.
He told me that his involvement was not about a return on his money, but rather to keep a wary eye on the arc of AI.
It gave me more visibility into the rate at which things are improving. I think they're improving at an accelerating rate, far faster than anybody realizes. Mostly because in everyday life, you don't see robots walking around.
Maybe your Roomba or something. But a Roomba is not going to take over the world.
In a startling public approach to his friends and fellow techies, Musk warned that they could be creating the means of their very own destruction. He told Bloomberg's Ashley Vance, the author of the biography of Elon Musk, that he was afraid that his friend, Larry HEP Page, the cofounder of Google and now the CEO of its parent company, Alphabet, could have perfectly good intentions but still produce something very evil by accident, including possibly a fleet of artificial intelligence enhanced robots capable of destroying all of mankind.
Sometimes, what will happen is a scientist will get so engrossed in their work that they really don't realize the ramifications of what they're doing.
Having some sort of merger with biological intelligence and machine intelligence, it may not be the -- it may be the way to escape human obsolescence. A Vulcan mind meld, if you will.
We're basically already there. We're already cyborgs. Your phone and your computer are extensions of you. But the interface is through finger movements or speech, which are very slow. We're now looking at a neural interlace, a lace inside of your skull that would flash data from your brain wirelessly to your Dylan devices or to virtually any unlimited computing power in the cloud for a means of partial brain interface. We are roughly four years away from that.
STU: Four years away from --
GLENN: Thinking and it doing. Did anybody see --
STU: You're not touching a screen.
GLENN: You're not touching anything.
STU: You're just thinking, I want the temperature to go up in this.
GLENN: And it goes up.
PAT: What? Four years!
GLENN: We're four years away.
PAT: No way.
GLENN: Did anybody see the article yesterday that came out -- for the first -- Pat, for the first time, somebody now has received the first real bionic legs that it operates exactly like your legs do. You think, and it does.
PAT: Boop, boop. Boop. Boop.
STU: I saw that documentary. That's --
GLENN: Yeah.
PAT: Yeah.
GLENN: Others, you have to start moving and get, you know -- and get it to move for you. This is now bionic. I believe it -- I believe they were legs, that as you think, it happens. And they have them now with hands --
PAT: Are people being fitted with those?
GLENN: Yes.
PAT: Are they really?
GLENN: Yes. The first one has fitted, and it's working now.
PAT: Oh, how outrageous is that?
GLENN: And that was the story yesterday.
Yeah. So what's the difference between that and this?
PAT: I don't know.
STU: Can we quickly point out that if you can think, I want the temperature to be higher in this room, the divorce rate is going to be 100 percent in this country.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
PAT: My wife and I are thermostatically incompatible.
(laughter)
GLENN: He went on to say, with artificial intelligence, we are summoning a demon. You know all those stories where there's the guy with the penneagram and the holy water, and he's like, yeah, yeah, no, I -- listen, we can control the demon. I'm just going to call it forth. It doesn't work out, said Musk.
(laughter)
Let's see. Musk is stoit HEP about his setbacks, but all too conscious of the nightmare scenarios. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer, and that is the way he's acted through most of history. We are the first species capable of self-annihilation.
Here's the nagging thought that you can't escape as you drag around from glass box to glass box in Silicon Valley. The lords of the cloud love to yammer about turning the world into a better place as they churn out new algorithms, apps, and inventions, that, it is claimed, will make our lives easier, healthier, funny, closer, cooler, longer, and kinder to the planet.
And yet, as you drive around after these meetings, there's a creepy feeling underneath it all, a sense that we are the mice in their experiments, that they regard us humans as betamaxes HEP or eight tracks. Old technology that will soon be discarded so they can get on with enjoying their new, sleek world.
Many people have already accepted this future. We'll live to be $150, but we'll have machine overlords. They argue not about whether, but rather how close we are to replicating, improving, and replacing ourselves.
Sam Altman, the 31-year-old president of Y Combinator, the Valley's top start accelerator, believes humanity is on the brink of such invention.
The hardest part of standing on an exponential curve is, when you look backward, it looks flat. When you look forward, it looks vertical. It's hard to calibrate how much you're moving because it always looks the same. You'd think that any time Musk, Stephen Hawking, and Gates are raising the same warning about AI, as all of them are, it would be a ten-alarm fire. But for a long time, the fog of fatalism over the Bay area was thick. Musk's crusade was viewed as a Luddite view.
STU: I mean, Elon Musk is not a Luddite. I think that's pretty clear.
JEFFY: No.
GLENN: No. The paradox is this: Many tech oligarchs see everything they're doing to help us, and all of their benevolent manifestos as streetlamps on the road to a future where, as Steve Wozniak says, humans are the streetlamp's pets.
Musk is not going gently. He plans on fighting this with every fiber of his carbon-based being. Musk and Altman have founded Open AI. Now, this is the way to solve it: Open AI, a billion-dollar nonprofit company to work for safer artificial intelligence. His view is, nobody is going to be able to stop this. Nobody is going to be able to stop this. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. And we're going to have people within ten years that are uploading and are transhumans. They are what's called transhumanism.
As we're talking about the stupid gender and what you feel like today, forget about all that nonsense. Transhumanism is real and it will happen in the next ten years, where you will merge with machines.
He believes that the problem is not -- not robots. The problem is AI merging on the internet.
Now, we saw a documentary with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
STU: Oh, yeah.
GLENN: Where at first you thought that it was the terminator robot that was the problem.
PAT: Uh-huh.
GLENN: And in later --
PAT: It was Skynet.
GLENN: It was Skynet.
PAT: We should have known, it was Skynet.
GLENN: That's what he says is the problem. We'll get back to this here in a second.
[break]
GLENN: Oh, no. I can't take it. I can't take it.
You know, I am full in, on AI. We're going back to Musk here in a second. I'm full-in on super intelligence. I will even be the pet. I will serve Skynet, if it will fix my television.
(laughter)
I cannot get -- it's -- I'm ready to go back to cable.
PAT: What's wrong with it?
GLENN: Oh, the remote control won't control -- won't work with Apple. Sometimes it doesn't work with the cable. You know, sometimes it doesn't turn the TV on at all. Sometimes it will turn everything on, but won't turn on the Apple box.
STU: Ugh.
PAT: And you've obviously had people out to try to fix it.
GLENN: Oh, I can't tell you how many thousands I have probably dumped in this. I just -- just give me a knob. Just give me a knob. Or Skynet. I will serve you, Skynet. I will serve you.
STU: TVs aren't going to work. But the AI thing is going to turn out well.
GLENN: It's going to be really good.
PAT: Really well. Yeah.
Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.
You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.
I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.
Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.
Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.
Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.
That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.
It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.
To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.
His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.
In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.
Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?
Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images
As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.
That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.
Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.
Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.
Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?
The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”
BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.
That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.
I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.
This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.
More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.
Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.
It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.
Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.
The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.
The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.
The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.
USAF / Handout | Getty Images
To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.
As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.
They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.
If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.
This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.
We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.
Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.
That would be catastrophic.
The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.
The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?
Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.
Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.
We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.
The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.
He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”
Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?
Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.
Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.
If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.
But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.
Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images
This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.
Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.
Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.
And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.
If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.
This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.
We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.
The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.
This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.
