Sex Robots and AI --- Are We Headed for a WestWorld Future?

After hearing about Germany’s first sex doll brothel, Glenn and Stu had some serious questions about the future of artificial intelligence on today’s show.

Some of them may sound crazy at this point, but as sex robots become more lifelike and AI keeps getting smarter, we should be asking these questions now.

  • Are we heading toward “Westworld”?
  • What happens when artificial intelligence starts saying it’s real?
  • If AI “thinks” it’s real, is a sex doll brothel a form of slavery?
  • How long until the U.S. has a birth rate crisis like Japan’s?

Listen to the full clip (above) for more analysis of the future of AI and sex in our society.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: We're getting to a place to where we can't talk to each other at all. I don't know if you saw -- do you remember Walter "Hawk" Newsome? He's the Black Lives Matter activist that was protesting a Trump rally? And they said, no, no. Free speech. You speak, and then we'll speak. We'll give you the microphone.

And he spoke. Well, now, Black Lives Matter is really upset. They said, he did a photo op. And he dismantled a lot of the work that our groups have been doing for F-ing years. It's unfortunate somebody who is so well-educated could represent the community from a radical perspective. He had to stoop to being tokenized by white supremacists.

Well, okay. So what are they saying?

Don't talk to anyone. Don't try to bridge any gaps at all. Don't allow them to see you as a human being.

How do we -- how do we do this? How do we do this? If we're controlled by politics and then because we're afraid of each other.

Look at what's happening in Hollywood now. How does -- how does anyone work in movies? For instance, West World. Do you remember the thing in West World that they had to sign?

If you were an actor or an actress, you had to sign a deal that said, "You will be posed in uncomfortable positions. Your body will be touching other bodies."

STU: Yeah, the talk was like, it was very invasive. And women had to sacrifice, basically give up all their rights.

GLENN: Men and women. Everybody had to sign it. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do that?

How are you going to be able to have anything in -- in Hollywood, in entertainment, even eventually in our own lives?

STU: Yeah. I don't know how you make any controversial content, at all. Listen to this. This was a tweet I saw. And it was from someone who was a woman, who went to go work for an organization. It was a content organization.

And she tweeted a part of her employment agreement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: And she decided not to take the job. She refused to take the job because of this.

Okay? Refused a brand-new job that she wanted and applied for because of this.

This is what it said: I understand that this company is involved in the entertainment industry. I further understand that because the company's business requires a creative working environment, including exposure to offensive speech, I may be exposed to conduct and speech that openly and explicitly relates to sex, as well as race, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion, disability, and age.

I acknowledge that I may be privy to conversations where offensive speech, work scripts, or roles that involve nudity, sexual scenarios, racial epitaphs, suggestive gestures, profanity, and references to stereotypes is utilized. I understand and acknowledge that as part of my job, I may be exposed to speech and conduct that explicitly relates to sex, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, religion, disability, and age. And I expressly agree and represent that I do not object to being exposed to such speech and conduct and do not find it otherwise offensive and objectionable and that I'm willing to work in such an environment.

Now, how does a company -- give you an example. Schindler's List without this agreement? How does a company make any movie? How does a company make West World?

GLENN: May I boil it down? I'm listening to that, and I'm thinking to myself, "I think we should have everybody in my company sign that," because look at what we --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We look at dead bodies. We are talking about ISIS, racism. We're talkings about all of these things.

STU: Coming up on the program today, we'll discuss the first sex doll brothel. Now, we talked about that in a meeting.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: We had to do research on it. Right?

I mean, it's not even -- this is a crazy example.

GLENN: So how do you --

STU: This was so offensive and so crazy, that she thought -- I'm going to tweet this so everybody can see the ridiculous things women have to deal with in the workplace.

Now, look, if you don't want to deal with that, I think that's understandable. Like, I wouldn't want to go work at a porn film manufacturer, because it's just not what I want to do with my life. But if I was going to work at the porn film manufacturer, I should sign something like this.

GLENN: Not only that, I mean, Stu, honestly, most of that applies to your job.

STU: Oh, absolutely, it does.

We're constantly discussing things when people make offensive comments in the media. We have to talk about offensive speech towards -- sometimes it's racial epithets. Sometimes it is --

GLENN: You're constantly surrounded by that stuff.

STU: Yeah. Think of every show the left loves.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

STU: Think of Veep or Breaking Bad. Or any piece of content that pushes the envelope in any way. The View, for example. I mean, again, literally all programming would be in this world. And I guess that you could say -- as a person, that doesn't mean you can be harassed and assaulted in the workplace. That's not what this says.

You're working in an environment where these things are discussed. And you have to be able to, as a company, if you're going to produce this content, you have to be able to say to your employees, look, you're going to hear some things that are offensive, and if you're so sensitive on this stuff that it bothers you, you probably shouldn't work --

GLENN: So here's the real solution: The real solution is, that should not be signed by women or men. That should be signed by infants with their footprint. Welcome to the world. You're going to be surrounded by nincompoops and offensive things.

(chuckling)

GLENN: So Harvey Weinstein is not doing well in sex rehab, apparently.

STU: Oh, no.

GLENN: He volunteered to go to rehab. And according to people, I guess in the facility --

STU: Oh, no. This is -- I thought he was going to do really well with this. And you're really ruining my day so far.

GLENN: One source says in one group therapy session, Harvey arrived 15 minutes late. He launched into a speech about how this was all a conspiracy against him. Then he fell asleep in his chair. He woke up by the ringing of his smuggled mobile phone, which is banned at the facility. He was jolted awake, jumped up, took the call and ran out of the room.

He -- another source close to Weinstein says he is no longer joining group sessions for, quote, obvious reasons. He insists that he never raped or assaulted anyone. And all of the encounters were consensual. He realized he acted like a hole of some sort and insisted that he's not a rapist. He does have his phone. When he's in therapy, he has to give to someone else. The characterization of what he said, what happened in the group session is not true.

I don't believe it. So I don't know if you saw the chauffeur. You know how all these stories end, where he was like, the chauffeur will take you home. My driver will take you home. Get out.

STU: Get out.

GLENN: Get out. Okay?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So this has come from his French chauffeur, the man who ferried Weinstein around when he was over in Cannes or in France.

He said, Weinstein beat him when he took to meet a prostitute that didn't show up. The alleged beating put him out of commission for four days. He went crazy and hit me. At that moment, there was no question, I would never work for him again. He did try to sue him for damages. But the local prosecutor in the town dismissed the charges.

He said, the women would enter the car with tears in their eyes. He said, I felt like driving poor innocent people. Innocent girls. Taking them to the wolves mouth. I could not tell them where you put your feet, it's dangerous.

He would -- I guess, you know, he would meet people in his hotel room, and he would have these women driven to him. He said, the one that marked me the most was a girl who was a fan of him, who loved him, who followed him for years. She gave her body, her soul, she gave everything to this man because he promised to make castings and make a film that was never shot.

He said, he would demand that the driver would leave him alone with the woman. And he said, I would often find traces of illicit products strung about.

I don't know what that means.

STU: Drugs, maybe. The nickname among the locals in Cannes for Harvey became the pig.

GLENN: The nickname among the locals in Cannes for Harvey became "the pig." One housekeeper at The Majestic Hotel where he stayed, said, oh, him. Yeah -- love this -- oh, him. He was the ugly one who thought he was God.

STU: That's -- that's actually on his business card: The ugly one who thinks he's God.

GLENN: He was very bossy. Men like George Clooney or Brad Pitt, they were such lovely men and so handsome, but not him. He was just a mean pig.

STU: It's interesting. This is sort of the reverse of the Vegas shooting story. In that, with Vegas, it's like, no one had any idea this guy was doing anything like this. There's no motive. There's no background. No trail. Nothing.

This is like literally everyone who has ever met the guy thought he was doing something like this. They may have not known the extent. They may not have known he was committing crimes. But everyone seemed to know this guy was a complete dirtbag. And people like that didn't say anything.

GLENN: Well, Quentin Tarantino came out and said he knew a lot more than -- he said, "I should have said something."

STU: Yeah, and he did a lot of movies with him.

GLENN: Yeah, all of his big movies.

STU: Yeah. All his big stuff.

He said, I knew enough to do more than I did. There was more to it than just normal rumors, than normal gospel. It wasn't secondhand. I knew he did a couple of these things.

I wish I had taken responsibility for what I had heard. If I had done the work I should have done then, I would have not worked with him anymore.

He was dating Mira Sorvino after Weinstein.

GLENN: And I guess Brad Pitt did know. Because Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt confronted him. So Brad Pitt did say something to Harvey Weinstein, just for the Angelina stuff.

STU: Yeah. And Quentin said basically he was dating her, and he knew Harvey wouldn't violate his relationship. So he thought she was protected, and he just brushed it off.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. So a guy, instead of going and stopping the other guy, he's just like, "Don't worry. You're under my umbrella now."

That's bad.

STU: Yeah. Not -- it's not a good look.

GLENN: You know, I thought of this last night. All these people who are now living with the shame -- and they're going to convince themselves that they had nothing they could do. Because that's what happened.

I mean, if you look at -- if you look at the Germans, the Germans that were involved and did nothing, you know, they all convinced themselves, eh, there was nothing we could do. And maybe not. But they had to live a life of shame.

And these people are living a life of shame. They're going to be tormented in their own head, because they know. They know they didn't rise to the occasion.

And so the question that we should all be asking ourself now is -- because I really believe, tough times just aren't sprung on you. It's not like everything is great and the next day it sucks and you're living under Hitler. It happens slowly. And you have opportunities to stop that slide all the way along. But society -- you know, it's in our Declaration of Independence. People are more likely to live with tyrants, than they are to upset the applecart. Now, that's obviously butchering the Declaration of Independence. But you're more likely to just go along with it.

STU: There wasn't an applecart reference in the Declaration of Independence. Are you sure about that?

GLENN: No, there was not. Applecarts, they're racist. I mean, it's human nature to just go along and let it slide.

And if you don't prepare yourself to stand up in in the easy times. He might have thought that was really hard. But he's now looking at that and going, jeez, that was easy. I should have done that. I should have done that.

Don't put yourself in a position to where you're ever having to say, I should have done X, Y, or Z. Do it. Do it. Don't live with the regret. And it's a muscle. Courage is a muscle.

If you're not exercising it in the smallest of ways, telling your kid what you should be telling your kid, telling your spouse what you should be telling your spouse, saying something to somebody that is important, that is hard for them to hear, but you should say it. If you aren't exercising that muscle of courage at the smallest, most personal level, you will never be able to stand when it really counts.

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.