BLOG

With Bill O'Reilly Gone, It's the Beginning of the End of Fox News as We Know It

Like him or not, Roger Ailes built a ship at Fox News that could not to be sunk. Rupert Murdoch was part of that, but his children and wives hate Fox News.

"They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination. And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense," Glenn said Wednesday on radio.

RELATED: Proof That Liberals Are Working to Remove Bill O’Reilly From Fox News

He also referred to Roger Ailes as a giant bear in the doorway that didn't let anything disrupt it.

"Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of 9/11," Glenn said.

RELATED: O’Reilly Antagonist Vows to Treat Him Like Glenn Beck

Now that Roger Ailes is out and Rupert Murdoch has become weakened, what impact would Bill O'Reilly's departure have?

"You better make a decision, America. Because you're about to lose a big conservative ally and voice. And it's not just Bill O'Reilly. I'm telling you, Sean Hannity will be next. Then Tucker Carlson will be next. Until everyone complies with what they say is not misinformation, they will continue to go. And once you have the big bear of Fox News out of the way, then they come for TheBlaze. Then they come for The Daily Wire. Then they come for all of us," Glenn said.

Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.

GLENN: All right. So I want to talk to you about something. I'm going to go into greater detail than I think I've ever gone into on a story on our leaving Fox News. And I'm going to do it for a reason today.

And let me just tell you what the media will say or what Media Matters will pump out to all of their friends, is that Glenn's empire is crumbling. He's just trying to get attention. He's jockeying for a position at Fox. Whatever. Okay.

I'm going to tell you the truth because I believe you have about 24 hours here before the conservative media dramatically changes. And you are going to lose a very important ally in the fight, even though you might not agree with the Fox News Channel.

As you know, no love lost between me and Fox News. And some of the players on Fox News. However, you better stand up now and figure out what's really happening with this O'Reilly thing, or you're going to lose Fox News. And I'll explain exactly how it's going to happen.

In the old days, when I was there, the -- the lineup was a really important piece. And I mean the lineup, not on the air. Off the air. The second floor. It was a well-crafted machine. And what that machine did was honestly not necessarily protect the Constitution and constitutional values. That machine was built to protect the -- the ship. It was an empty cargo ship that Roger Ailes created. Whatever he wanted to put into that ship, he put in that ship.

But that ship was well protected. And you needed to have a well-protected ship because every other ship on the sea was against it because it was a G.O.P. machine. And I contend that it's not a conservative news channel; it is a G.O.P. machine. But it is the closest thing we have in mainstream media. It makes a ton of money, and it makes a huge impact.

Without Fox News, we probably would not be here today, as a nation. I truly believe that. Without Fox News, I don't know if we would have weathered the storm of the economic crash, if we would have weathered the storm of -- of 9/11. After that, when it started all going crazy and everybody was talking about how, you know -- how bad George Bush was in, and Michael Moore was alleging that George Bush was part of the conspiracy. Without a balance to that, I don't know if we would have been -- be here today. And certainly, we wouldn't be here on talk radio because talk radio would have been the only target. It would have been the last -- the last beachhead. And we would have been gone. They would have put us out, but they were busy trying to put out Fox News.

So Roger Ailes, like him, hate him, let's know him for who we think he is -- no matter what, he built a ship that was not going to be sunk.

Rupert Murdoch was part of that. But Rupert Murdoch has children and wives -- lots of them -- that hate the Fox News Channel. They are embarrassed by the Fox News Channel. They're not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.

And the big thing when I was there was, as soon as Rupert is gone, the kids are going to take over Fox News and they're just going to clean house and stop this nonsense.

So it went Rupert Murdoch, his kids were not in the picture, Roger Ailes, who was a giant bear in the doorway and didn't let anything disrupt it. Then there was Bill Shine, who was, you know, the programming guy at Fox News who worked to execute Roger's vision. And then there was a guy called Brian Lewis and Irena Briganti.

This is the PR department. And I want to be really careful what I say here. But these were not good people, to say the least, in my opinion.

I will tell you that the only meeting that I ever had with Irena Briganti, I will keep to myself for right now. But I left that meeting, and it was on my first day. And I said to my then business partner, I said, "I feel like I've just had a meeting with the mob." And he said, "I think we have."

It was a -- it was a department that let everyone in the building know, "You screw with us, we destroy you." It was made very clear to me on the first day.

I was the only person at Fox News to have my own PR person. The only other person that ever tried to do that and did it successfully was Megyn Kelly, after I left.

And that -- Fox News did not like that. They didn't like that I owned my own company. They didn't like that I was independent. They didn't, quite honestly, like that I -- they couldn't find anything on me. And that too is another story that will remain for another time because it's not important here.

What I want you to know is two things: This was a bulletproof shield for whatever cargo Roger Ailes wanted to carry 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And most of that, we appreciate.

Roger is now gone. Rupert's children are now playing a big role in the future of Fox. That's not going to bode well. Those two things mean the end of the conservative Fox, as we know it, or have known it, is numbered. The end is coming. The days are numbered.

Bill Shine is the next target from Media Matters. And I'm going to get into that in a second. Brian Lewis is already gone. Don't know what happened with Brian Lewis, but there's a book out about Rupert Murdoch. And at the last chapter on this book says: The only two men that Rupert Murdoch are afraid of is Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis. And Brian Lewis because he knows where all the bodies are buried. Brian is a guy who settled for $7 million, a 7 million-dollar settlement. At least that's what I've heard, that he settled for a lot of money after Roger Ailes fired him. $7 million because he knows where all the bodies are buried.

Who brokered that deal between Roger Ailes and Brian Lewis? The head of the PR, which the PR is the one who did all of the fighting in the press, did all of the underhand stuff. Made all these things disappear. Brian Lewis and Roger Ailes. When there was a fight between them and they had to part ways, the media started to salivate because Brian knows all of Roger's secrets.

So who brokered that deal? Who sat in the conference room between those two and said, "What do you have on him? What do you have on him? Okay. I think it's worth this. Both go away happy."

That guy who brokered that deal was Donald Trump. Is it beginning to become clear at all why Donald Trump was treated the way he was by the Fox News Channel, at least when Roger was there?

Now, Brian is gone. Roger is gone. Rupert is weakened. And they're going after Bill O'Reilly.

Tomorrow, the newspaper is telling us, front page of the New York Times today says that Bill O'Reilly is in his last 24 hours.

Now, I want to make this really clear: I've heard -- I mean, I was not surprised by the -- by the findings or the rumors of Roger Ailes. But until Megyn Kelly came out, I didn't believe it. I thought Gretchen Carlson was pretty credible. But I still didn't know. It was one person. But I thought she was really pretty credible. And I had heard rumors like that while I was there. I had no evidence. I never saw anything. But it -- it didn't surprise me when Gretchen said that. But I don't want to -- you know, that's one person. The other people that started to come out against Roger looked really bad. But I didn't know any of them.

When Megyn came out and said, "Yeah, it happened to me," now I had two people that I went, "Okay. It's Gretchen and Megyn, I believe them." And only because I'm judging it -- I'm not judging it -- because I don't have access to anything else. So as an outside person, I didn't want to believe it until I had two credible people that I knew -- I believe it.

With Bill O'Reilly, I've never heard that. We worked closely with Bill on the road. We would go on the road. And he had access to very beautiful women on our staff. And he worked closely with very beautiful women on our staff. We never saw him utter a word that was even blue humor. He was so buttoned up when he was around us, that I find these charges hard to believe.

And to me, it makes sense that he may have had this one sexual harassment thing that was settled from a producer. He may have -- they may have had, you know, some here and there. Somebody could have set him up very easily. Played into, yeah, kind of flirting back with him. It's just one person. And then she wanted to make a name for herself, make money, whatever. That's what the suit alleged. And he pays out to silence -- Fox pays out to silence.

That's pretty bad, right? They paid money -- they settled.

Let me tell you something: I've just settled a case in Boston that I will go to my grave, I'm right. I'm right.

My insurance company pressured me for over a year. Premier pressured me for over a year. Glenn, settle it. Settle it.

"I'm right."

"Settle it."

When it got to a million and a half money of uninsured money that I had to pay out and it was looking at yet another probably $3 million -- I was willing to take it to the Supreme Court. My partners weren't. "Settle it." So I settled that. But I settled it with the stipulation, nothing is sealed. I want everybody to be able to see all the testimony, everything. Nothing is sealed.

Well, this guy, he was going to Saudi Arabia. He didn't care. Now, has anybody taken the time to read all of that? It's all public record? No. No. They're still smearing me --

PAT: Some day we'll help them with that. We'll tell you the story.

GLENN: We're going to help them. We're going to help them.

But it's still being used to smear me. And how am I being smeared? He settled; he must have been guilty. So settlement in today's world -- and you know this because we've all worked for a corporation where they settle things, and you sit around in the hallway and you say, "Why would we settle this? Don't. It just encourages more." You're right. It does. It does.

But what are you going to do, when you have insurance companies and everybody else saying, "Just pay the freight." Okay.

So far, I haven't seen anything with Bill O'Reilly that -- that I believe. That doesn't mean that there's not something there. But I will tell you, even if there is something there, there is something more important going on at the same time. You want to fire Bill O'Reilly for sexual harassment, then good. Make that case. Make it very public. But there's something else. And you need to know about it. And you need to make the decision. Because in 24 hours, I think they're going to fire Bill O'Reilly. And after they fire Bill O'Reilly, who is the next big dog on the ticket? It's going to be Sean Hannity. Sean hasn't done anything wrong. He'll be the next target.

Okay. Well, we'll lose Sean Hannity too. Well, where does that stop?

This is about right and wrong. And there's two rights and wrongs: sexual harassment. Don't know anything about that, has to be settled. The other is a witch hunt. And it's a conservative witch hunt. And I have the evidence that you might have read about -- if you read anything about Bill O'Reilly, he said he's got paperworks. Okay. So I wrote Bill last night in Italy. "Bill, you have the paperwork? Can I see it?" I'll share it, next.

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.