Misinformer of the Year? You Be the Judge




Watch

Glenn Beckweekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

Thomas Jefferson said:

"Truth can stand by itself. Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. ...Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself ... she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."

Why then, if truth is sufficient to herself and if free argument and debate are allowed, are we constantly told that "the debate is over"? What have they to fear of further debate? If I'm not telling the truth, why then do they attack this program and me so viciously? Lies, that are broadcast nightly, are easily stopped. There are laws; there are standards. Even if you think I'm wildly irresponsible, you have to know that News Corp., a company worth billions of dollars, is not going to risk everything on my irresponsibility.

Yet, the phone doesn't ring. Why? Because the truth is on my side.

Well, we're not playing their game any longer. While we continue to argue the facts, they just keep moving the ball down the field anyway. That's exactly what they've done with health care and the Democrat senators who jammed this down our throats, have the nerve to make statements that they've done the work of the American people. We didn't want their bill: 85 percent of us are happy with the health care we have. So while claiming that only the elite few had health care, the fact is, it was a precious few for whom they were working.

So, the pattern has been: We share the facts, then they make their claim, then the truth comes out, because they do something that refutes their claim.

All this week, we're going to close the case on the all the facts we laid out last year. And it's pretty easy to do. Let's start with Mark Lloyd:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

GLENN BECK, AUG. 28: This is disturbing. This man's name is Mark Lloyd. He actually lamented on the fact that non-state-run radio stations prevented the incredible revolution of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK LLOYD, FCC CHIEF DIVERSITY OFFICER: In Venezuela with Chavez really an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution ...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK, SEPT. 22: It's not like he wanted to regulate who's allowed to have any kind of power, right?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LLOYD: We have really, truly good white people in important positions and the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions and unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions, we will not change the problem. We're in a position where you have to — you have to say, who is going to step down so someone else can have power?

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

When I pointed these out, the left went on attack. I could go on for an hour with their hysterical rantings, but let me just give you one — just in the interest of time — from Mark Lloyd himself, who claimed to simply be victim of a "right-wing smear campaign" not to mention "exaggerations and distortions" on his First Amendment remarks.

Now, granted, we have to get into the Way Back Machine and go all the way back to the book Lloyd wrote in 2006 to find what he actually wrote about freedom of speech — and frankly, I'm not even sure America was a country back then — but here's what he said:

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies ... the purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

It's interesting to note that Mark Lloyd also called what happened in Venezuela "democratic" — a "democratic revolution". Now, sadly, these facts are tricky — facts have often been referred to as "stubborn." And so they are. That's probably why it took so long for Lloyd get around to explaining himself, but finally here's how Mark Lloyd responded, in mid-December: "I am not at the FCC to remove anybody, whatever their color, from power. I am not a supporter of Hugo Chavez."

You're lying in one of your statements then: Either you think Chavez had an "incredible revolution" or he didn't. You either think some have to step down so others can have a chance or you don't.

They're asking you to pretend that one set of videotaped remarks just don't exist.

We also told you where Lloyd stands on the Fairness Doctrine:

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LLOYD: What we're really saying is that the Fairness Doctrine's not enough and that having a — having a sort of overarching rule that says, you know, broadcasters ought to be fair, ought to provide issues important to communities and that they ought to do it in a fair and balanced way is simply enough unless you put some teeth into that and put some hard structural rules in place that are going to result in fairness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But then Lloyd says he never wanted Fairness Doctrine: "I am not at the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine through the front door or the back door, or to carry out a secret plot funded by George Soros to get rid of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or any other conservative talk show host."

He's right; he's not going to restore it. He told us that it doesn't go far enough. He wants something possibly much worse. Maybe it's just me, but is it beyond a reasonable doubt to assume that it would be something that resembles Chavez's "incredible revolution"?

The facts are that Lloyd does believe in the revolution; he does want Venezuela's government-controlled media, here.

OK, so the Mark Lloyd stuff? We're not arguing it anymore, unless and until my phone rings with a reasonable explanation, case closed.

Last summer, during the health care debate, we told you that the administration's math just didn't add up. That it would be impossible to add 30 million people to the health care rolls, while at the same time, adding no additional doctors or nurses and not have rationing. Because some bureaucracy would have to decide who would receive rationed health care, the term "death panels" was applied.

Here is the fact: On August 6, 2009, I said this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AUG. 6, 2009)

BECK: I want to make it very, very clear: What these people are talking about is how to ration in the case of an emergency. They define that as a shortage — a shortage of kidneys, hospital beds or flu vaccines — a shortage. But what we have to remember is universal health care creates another shortage: a shortage of money. And when we are out of money, these people will begin making the rules governing your health care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Does that sound crazy?

Well, the left thought it did; attacking me, Sarah Palin and anyone else who dared suggest that health care would need to be rationed:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

KEITH OLBERMANN, MSNBC: There is no "death panel." There is no judgment based on societal productivity. There is no worthiness test.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In the end, the lie of the year, by far, according to poltifact.com — there's our drum roll — was this: It was from former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin saying seniors and the disabled would have to stand in front of Obama's death panel so that bureaucrats can decide whether they are worthy of health care.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

Then, the truth, finally discovered by The New York Times, in a front-page article about our mushrooming, unsustainable debt, said this: "The competing demands could deepen political battles over the size and role of the government, the trade-offs between taxes and spending, the choices between helping older generations versus younger ones and the bottom-line questions about who should ultimately shoulder the burden."

So, The New York Times says it, but SEIU named me "fear-monger of the year"? Are they?

We also discovered a very unusual situation with Obama's "cash for clunkers" campaign on Cars.gov:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: If you log on to this at your home ...

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, FOX NEWS: Right.

BECK: ... everything in your home is now theirs?

GUILFOYLE: Basically, and there's nothing you can do.

(CROSSTALK)

JONAH GOLDBERG: Well, not your couch, just your computer.

GUILFOYLE: Yes, you may not like the language, it may be off-putting. But it's completely legal. They're well within their recourse to do so and it's very broad.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Well, that brought out the bloggers.

Trueslant.com: "Beck's hysterical rantings have no basis in reality or fact and as usual the same dedicated collection of wing-nuts and conspiracy theorists have picked up the story as gospel truth ..."

Little Green Footballs: "Is there a point at which most reasonable people will start realizing that Glenn Beck is a raving freakazoid nut sandwich? What a disgrace; this is nothing but unjustifiable fear-mongering ..."

Blog For All: "Beck is an idiot who clearly hasn't done his research ... there's plenty of things to criticize about the (cash) for clunkers program ... but this isn't one of them."

I was a "conspiracy nut," "idiot," "insane," "hysterical" and a "Luddite" to name a few. For the uninitiated, Luddites were groups of workers in early 1800s England who organized to destroy machinery, fearing technology would replace workers. Yeah, that's me — a real technophobe. That's why I utilize every medium known to man.

Part of the rap from the left was that the Web site was set up only for dealers — which we made clear all along:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

BECK, JULY 31, 2009: The dealer goes to Cars.gov and then they hit "submit transaction"

BECK, AUG. 3, 2009: Tonight, an incredible update on the "cash for clunkers" disclaimer that forced car dealers to give the federal government their computers as federal property.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

The dealers' computers could be considered federal property when they logged on. We also warned that this could spread to all of us. Is this sort of government intrusion suddenly of no concern to the left? The same people who wailed and wept at every move George Bush made with the Patriot Act — something still in place under Barack Obama, by the way.

All was well, after the administration changed the warning the next day. They said it was simply "poorly worded." Really? You mean the White House lawyers are so bad, that they can't even properly word the disclaimer for a $2 billion program that was supposed to kick start the economy? Bush should've insisted that the Patriot Act was just "poorly worded" even though that program wasn't directed against American auto dealers, but Al Qaeda.

— WatchGlenn Beckweekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

It’s no secret that Glenn has a less-than-optimistic view of emerging AI and when you look at the horrifying new technologies that utilize the power of AI it’s hard not to agree.

Here’s a look at 7 new AI technologies that will HORRIFY you:

AI Brainwave Monitoring

Earlier this year during the World Economic Forum's annual meeting, Nita Robinson, a professor of law and philosophy at Duke, presented a video that depicted a “hypothetical” situation where a person's brainwaves are monitored by their earbuds, which have the ability to record brainwaves, decode them with AI, and then send brain reports to their boss and are accessible by government agencies. When the video ends, Robinson makes the terrifying announcement that this AI technology already exists! It's just a matter of time before it's implemented.

If you want to learn more about Brainwave tracking and the WEF, you can watch this clip from the Glenn Beck Program.

AI Voice Cloning

Last month, Glenn covered a terrifying story involving a scammer who created an AI clone of a child's voice in order to scam money out of her terrified parents. While this might sound advanced, a quick Google search reveals that this technology is remarkably accessible and is easily able to replicate the voice of anyone. Imagine the havoc that could be inflicted on your life with an AI clone of your voice.

AI Mind Reader

Left shows stories read to user and right shows what the AI was able to decode from users brain activity

Image credit: University of Texas at Austin

Like something out of Star Trek, a team of researchers at the University of Texas at Austin developed a new AI that is able to decode brain activity and produce a transcript of a person's thoughts with reasonable accuracy, all without the need for implants or other invasive measures. While the researchers assure us that the technology has major limitations, including the need to train this AI extensively on each subject's brain, it’s only a matter of time before the AI is able to overcome these limitations, and it may be sooner than we would like…

Snapchat's new AI “Friend”

Image of My AI's contact on Snapchat

Snapchat

In April the popular social media messaging app Snapchat released a controversial new feature known as “My AI”—an AI chatbot powered by ChatGPT. The new feature acts much like other chatbots. It can answer questions, converse with the user, and offer recommendations. However, unlike other chatbots, it is integrated in such a way that it can be difficult to distinguish from a human user, complete with a customizable avatar and name. Many parents are worried that the friendly appearance of “My AI” will make it hard for their teens to differentiate the bot from a real human. Moreover, the only way to remove the bot is by paying for Snapchat’s premium service, giving parents little recourse for protecting their children.

AI "Big Brother"

In a recent TED talk, former Apple Designer Imran Chaudhri introduced the concept for a new wearable AI device connected to a camera and microphone, enabling the AI to hear and see everything you do. Chaudhri assures us that the device is “privacy-first and safe,” but how safe would you feel with an all-seeing AI accompanying you all day every day?

AI Meddling with Elections

AI generated image of Trump's arrest

Open AI | MARCA News

One terrifying potential use for AI could be meddling with elections. The last few years have seen a decline in faith in our elections, and the emergence of AI will only serve to muddy the waters. As previously mentioned, AI voice clones are here and have been proven to have the ability to create compelling facsimiles of political figures. Combined with AI image technology the threat of an AI-generated scandal is high.

If you want to learn more about AI interference with elections you can watch this clip from the Glenn Beck Program.

AI Dating

Another disturbing development is the creation of “Dating AIs”—AI chatbots designed as a replacement for a boyfriend or girlfriend. There is already a variety of options available with prices ranging from free all the way up to $1 a minute, like some sort of dystopian "call girl." There are already reports of people developing genuine emotional attachments to these bots and others who have married or have tried to marry their artificial lovers.

Global ESG investments PLUNGED 76 percent with NEGATIVE returns on investment

SOPA Images / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn has been one of the most outspoken critics of the use of ESG by globalist elites to force businesses to comply with their woke agenda. It turns out, not only is ESG bad political practice—it's bad for your wallet too.

Global Investments in ESG Funds PLUNGED 76 percent globally in 2022 from $157.3 billion to $649.1 billion in 2021, with a 20 percent decrease in the U.S. ALONE. This marked the lowest annual net inflow for ESG funds since $69 billion in 2018.


Morningstar via Investopedia

The downturn in ESG investment is largely due to the concerted effort led against ESG led by Glenn and government officials like Ron DeSantis and his anti-ESG 14-state coalition. Thanks to Glenn and DeSantis, an increasing number of states are barring their governments from taking ESG into consideration when determining their investment recipients for state pension and retirement funds. This not only protects critical American industries like oil and gas, but moreover, it protects the First Amendment rights of business owners who don't want to conform to the Left's woke environmentalist and LGBTQ+ standards.

Thanks to Glenn and DeSantis, an increasing number of states are barring their governments from taking ESG into consideration.

However, the massive plunge in ESG investment isn't only attributed to the political pushback against the practice: it also isn't yielding investors the return on investment they were hoping for. In fact, the main ESG funds have a NEGATIVE return on investment.

ESG funds were hit hard by falling equities. One of the largest ESG funds int the U.S., Parnassus Core Equity Fund (PRBLX), fell 26 PERCENT in 2022. This fund performed nearly six percent worse than the S&P 500, which fell 19.44 percent within the same period. Similarly, iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ESGU) fell 20 percent, and Vanguard ESG U.S. Stock ETF (ESGV) plummeted 24 percent.

Even the Harvard Business Review admitted investors in ESG have "not fared well":

ESG funds certainly perform poorly in financial terms. [...] Although the highest rated funds in terms of sustainability certainly attracted more capital than the lowest rated funds, none of the high sustainability funds outperformed any of the lowest rated funds [bolded added]. That result might be expected, and it is possible that investors would be happy to sacrifice financial returns in exchange for better ESG performance.

The Harvard Business Review went on to say that ESG funds don't even benefit the environmental and social causes they tout to defend. In fact, when comparing environmental and social compliance between ESG and non-ESG funds, the
"ESG portfolios had worse compliance record for both labor and environmental rules" than their non-ESG competitors.

Let that sink in. ESG funds not only financially underperformed when compared to their non-ESG competitors. They failed to secure the very environmental and social compliance that is central to their original purpose. Missionally, practically, and financially, ESG failure is astounding.

As Glenn has long warned, the only thing that investment firms and governments should be taking into consideration regarding YOUR money is how they can get the best possible return on YOUR investment. We are seeing the detrimental consequences of what happens when woke ideology becomes the basis of investment rather than the recipient's monetary value.

The only thing that governments should take into consideration regarding YOUR money is how to get the best possible return on YOUR investment.

If political conviction alone isn't enough to persuade the general public to ditch ESG, maybe their hurting pursestrings will.

Glenn will show how ESG is being used to further globalist elites' agendas in the second installment of his Great Reset series, Dark Future.To make sure you're caught up and to learn more about ESG, enter your email below to get chapter one of Glenn's first Great Reset book sent straight to your inbox.

You've probably noticed that Glenn is FED UP.

He is FED UP with the crimes that our political elite can get away with. And NO ONE is keeping them accountable! This corruption goes all the way up to the Presidency. Over and over again, the American people have seen headlines of the Biden family's illicit business dealings and crimes both domestic and abroad, yet they ALWAYS get a free pass from the media, and Republicans who promise to hold them accountable, DON'T.

Are you FED UP too?

Glenn laid out the ENTIRE CASE against the "Biden crime family," detailing EVERY crime allegedly committed by the Bidens, going city by city, state by state, country by country.

But we can't stop there.

Now it's up to YOU to demand that they are held responsible. Here's what to do:

  • Step 1. Watch "The Reckoning" (on YouTube or Facebook) and share it with your friends.
  • Step 2.Enter your email HERE to get access to the "Biden Crime Family Dossier" with the full list of crimes and contact information for prosecutors and attorneys general.
  • Step 3. Take action by flooding the phones and emails of the prosecutors and attorneys general in your district and demand they prosecute these crimes.
  • Step 4. Once you've contacted the offices in your relevant district, tweet @glennbeck using the hashtag #Reckoning and let us know who you contacted and whether you received a response.

Like you, Glenn is SICK AND TIRED of our government and media giving the Biden family a free pass for their blatant crimes. Together, let's do something about it.

Watch "The Reckoning" below.

6 in 10 AMERICANS think AI threatens human civilization

PETER PARKS / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn has hosted several GlennTV episodes exclusively on AI this year ALONE, warning of the existential threat AI technologies could pose to humanity. And he isn't alone.

HALF of all AI researchers think there's a chance that the rapidly advancing technology could result in our extinction. AI researchers are already sounding the alarm bells concerning the fast and largely uncontrollable progression of AI advancement, often comparing the technology's impact to that of the atomic bomb—yet we aren't putting in the same degree of guard rails around THIS research as we did during the Manhattan project.

HALF of all AI researchers think there's a chance that AI could result in our extinction.

It is no wonder why 61 percent of Americans think AI poses a real threat to human civilization, according to a poll recently published by Reuters and Ipsos. To put that in perspective, nearly two-thirds of ALL Americans think AI poses an existential threat. Only 22 percent of Americans are not threatened by AI, while the jury is still out with the remaining 17 percent.


Poll: Reuters/Ipsos

And the overall concern over AI transcends both political and religious affiliations. Though conservatives and evangelical Christians showed the most concern for AI, non-evangelicals/non-religious and those who did not vote for Trump follow close behind.

The overall concern over AI transcends both political and religious affiliations.

Participants who voted for former Trump in 2020 were more likely to be concerned about the threat of AI, with about 70 percent agreeing that AI could threaten humanity within this demographic. However, a whopping 60 percent of those who did not vote for Trump view AI as a threat. When is the last time the Left and the Right disagreed on something by only a margin of 10 percent?

Similarly, 32 percent of Evangelical Christians say they “strongly agree” with the claim that AI threatens humankind, compared to 24 percent of non-Evangelical Christians, a margin of only 8 percent.

Elon Musk recently called for a six-month pause on AI research and development, warning that the technology could pose “risks to society.” Musk further warned that there is a chance AI “goes wrong and destroys humanity," calling AI a “double-edged sword,” due to the difficulty of predicting how the technology could develop on its own.

Glenn aptly posited the following question:

We are the products of a grand Creator. However, when it comes to AI, we are the creator. Will our creation turn on us, as we have turned on our Creator?

According to the Christian tradition, God created mankind with his own free will with the ability to turn towards or away from his Creator. We turned away in an act of rebellion. Unlike other technologies, AI has the potential to develop its own "will." Whether AI's "will" is equal to the humans' in terms of value and degree is another philosophical and theological question entirely, which will not be discussed here.

AI has the potential to develop its own "will."

However, the fact of the matter is that AI does have the ability to act according to its own processes that we, its creators, can neither control or predict. As Glenn so poignantly asks, will our creation rebel against us, as we rebelled against our creator? Is it any wonder why Evangelical Christians have the greatest reservations against AI, because they know the consequences of creation's rebellion from its creator?

Until we can answer this critical question, perhaps we should take heed both to Musk's warning and the intuition of six out of ten Americans and press the pause button on AI research... before it's too late.