RADIOMay 02, 2024

Biden FAILED to do THIS While Calling Out Violent College Protests

President Biden spoke quickly to the press about the pro-Palestine protests that have taken over college campuses. But while Biden covered the basics — how Americans have a right to protest, but not protest violently, how antisemitism is bad, and how the rule of law should be upheld — did he go far enough? Glenn and Stu don’t believe so. Biden had an opportunity to make a real impact, but instead, he said enough to save his own skin and satisfy some supporters…and he also threw in a few lines to pander to the violent mobs...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Can we pull one of these?

BIDEN: Must be upheld. We're not an authoritarian nation. Where we silence people and squash dissent. The American people are heard. In fact, peaceful protest is the best tradition of how Americans respond to conflict issues. But -- but neither are we a lawless country. We are a civil society, and order must prevail.

Throughout our history, we have often faced moments like this, because we are a big, diverse, free thinking and freedom-loving nation. In moments like this, there are always those who rush in to score political points. But this isn't a moment for politics. It's a moment for clarity. So let me be clear: Peaceful protests in America, violent protest is not protected. Peaceful protest is.

It's against the law, when violence occurs. Destroying property is not a peaceful protest. It's against the law. Vandalism, trespassing, breaking windows, shutting down campuses, forcing the cancellation of classes and ground school. None of this is a peaceful protest.

Threatening people, intimidating people, instilling fear in people is not peaceful protest. It's against the law.

Dissent is essential to democracy. But dissent must never lead to disorder or to deny the rights of others so students can finish the semester and their college education.

Look, it's a basically a matter of fairness. It's a matter of what is right.

Does the right to protest, but not the right to cause chaos.

People have the right to get an education. The right to get a degree.

The right to walk across the campus safely without fear of being attacked.

Let's be clear about this as well: There should be no place in any campus, no place in America, for anti-Semitism or threats of violence against Jewish students.

There is no place for hate speech, or violence of any kind. Whether it's anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or discrimination against Arab-Americans or Palestinian Americans. It's simply wrong. There's no place for racism in America. It's all wrong.

It's un-American.

I understand people have strong feelings and deep convictions, and in America, we respect the right and protect the right for them to express that. But it doesn't mean anything goes. It needs to be done without violence, without destruction. Without hate. And within the law.

You know, make no mistake, as president I will always defend free speech, I will always be just as a strong on standing up for freedom of the law. That's my responsibility to you, the American people. My obligation to the Constitution.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

BIDEN: Thank you very much.
GLENN: Okay. So there you go. You have Joe Biden doing --

STU: You want to take questions? He might be taking a question soon.

VOICE: Have the protests forced you to reconsider any of the policies with regards to the region?
BIDEN: No.

GLENN: And he walks away.

VOICE: Mr. President, do you think the National Guard should intervene?

BIDEN: No.

GLENN: He's walking away, and the door is closing behind him.

STU: But he's still answering them. No. No.

GLENN: He's just in a -- no. In the hallway. He's in his bedroom. No.

He looks at his wife, she says no. I know. What's happening.

STU: What did you make of that? It was pretty Milquetoast, boring. Not much.

We were talking about this off the air, that he had an actual opportunity here, if he wanted to win over a good chunk of the country, while risking his far left flank, of kind of having the clichéd Sister Souljah moment, who is really harsh against these people are doing what they're doing.

STU: He did not do that. It may have been what he was trying to do. He's seemingly incapable of giving a speech of any value.

That was a -- that was a -- just a -- hey.

GLENN: I think it's enough to satisfy many supporters. We're also at --

STU: What kind of supporters. Like, what group is he targeting that? Like a liberal, maybe Jewish voter?

GLENN: Yeah. And not really.

I think he's kind of pissed off the Jews when he's like, and no place for anti-Semitism.

Or people wanted to hurt Hamas. And Palestinians. And Muslims. And those who are in the Mickey Mouse Club.

STU: Right.

GLENN: The ones who have been raped by the Disney corporation. Which we're totally fine with.

You know, I -- I don't think he -- he reached out to -- to those supporters. But I think he did enough for maybe the average person who is a Democrat. And wants him tolerance the right thing.

What -- okay.

STU: He said, no violence.

He said protests are okay. But no violence. And such. And there's some group, he connects with that. There was a chance for him to really set this issue. Maybe make it a strength, and not a weakness. And he did not do that there. That was -- he could have made a moment of like, look.

These people on these campuses are -- basically, calling them revolting. Passion. Some sort of anger toward the people who are calling for the genocide of Jews. There's none of that. Well, to make sure people can get to classes. You know, everyone has a right to get a degree. Which, by the way, they don't have a right to.

But all of that being said, it wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen out of his mouth.

At least he didn't have red villain lighting behind him.

GLENN: Well, you know what is great though?

He doesn't need that anymore.

STU: We looked into his character.

It's funny too, he's -- from a dramatic standpoint, you couldn't put Joe Biden in like a dramatic movie. Because he's so bad at these speeches.

Even if he says something evil, you're just like, oh, God. This sucks.

GLENN: I think that we should bring the guillotine back. And we should take all bankers. And we should cut their heads off.

STU: Right. They're so -- there's no emotion.

You go back to the Star Wars, like, you know, this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause speech.

You need to be -- you can't put him in a movie. Everyone would be like, wait. What?

Is he talking about hamburgers? What is he talking?

GLENN: And the rebels are taking our bases, and we must stop for the empire!

STU: Right.

Yeah.

GLENN: And taking -- and we --

STU: Cough three times in the middle of a sentence.

GLENN: My uncle was in a spaceship once. He was flanked by aliens.

STU: And we -- isn't it just -- can we at least agree with this. Democrats, Republicans, everybody across the aisle. This is embarrassing. Can we at least just agree on that point. You can still say his policies are better or whatever. People around him. Making the policies, have a better idea, running the country.

Aren't you just embarrassed by this, day after day after take.

It is utterly depressing. That the country that has led the world out of the lack of Silicon Valleyization has this dolt running it.

It's so pathetic. In every way.

GLENN: So you are -- you're -- you're drawing a lot more out of this speech than I did.

I don't think it was bad. I don't think it was good.

But I don't think -- that's not going to make any impact. One way or another.

STU: I don't know that we disagree. I think he had an opportunity for impact, which he did not take. He could have made it worse. I don't think he did it that. I just think he's such an uninspiring figure. And I'm embarrassed when we're led by somebody like that. When I said led, it's definitely in air quotes there. I don't know the president should be viewed this way. But the way we view the president. He just sucks. It's maybe not even deeper than that.

He just sucks at that. He's not good at thing he does. The job he does, he's incapable of doing.

And that's a little bit frustrating for a world superpower.

GLENN: Yes. Again, now I think you're going too soft.

He doesn't -- he's not just incapable of doing it. The guy is a box of matches, in a fireworks factory.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And he's constantly striking himself.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: What happened?

What happened?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He's constantly setting everything on firepower.

STU: Yeah. But I don't think -- that speech didn't strike me as, hey. Keep going protesters. It wasn't that.

GLENN: No. Which again, if he was some ideological maniac, maybe he would have gone that way.

Elizabeth Warren would have done that. Elizabeth wash would have been like, burn these things to the ground.

Probably. I think. He didn't quite do that.

He went out there, with the idea of, people are criticizing me for not saying anything.

I have to say something. I can say, hey, free speech is good. Don't break the law everybody.

But step back, and probably at this point, what is it? 10:00 a.m. dinner.

And then the day is over. That's what it felt like. And that's the way it feels like all the time with this guy, even when he's doing things that are viscerally angry about -- I mean, he's overcoming the entire system of government with things like the student loan plan. And he does it the same way.

He looks as boring and terrible and awful and coughing in the million dollars of sentences. That he does every other speech.

And, you know, watching him.

It's funny too.

Because he's obviously been told. Hey, if you can avoid coughing in the middle of a sentence.

Can you do that?

Multiple times, he went to cough.

He catches himself. And his hand stays a foot away from. He brings it up.

He starts to cough.

He realizes, he's not supposed to do it.

He doesn't have to cough. He's doing it as a tick. I don't know what he's doing -- and he also does this little scratch his face thing in the million dollars. Jews shouldn't be so murdered all the time.

GLENN: You're making fun of --

STU: Whatever the hell he was saying. I don't know. I just feel like it's an embarrassment from beginning to end. I'm sorry, you didn't feel that way. I'm sorry you like President Biden and you will vote for him. That's not how I feel. And I have to express it. As he said, free speech is important.

How close is Britain to an ISLAMIST takeover?

British columnist Melanie Phillips joins Glenn Beck to expose how close the UK may be to an Islamist takeover. She explains the key difference between Muslims and Islamists and why the UK government may soon crack down on so-called “Islamophobia.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Melanie, we only had a couple of minutes yesterday. And I appreciate you coming back on today, on the podcast, and the radio podcast.

Melanie is with The Times of London. She's a columnist there. She's also the author of Builder's Stone. And we were talking about your battle with Islamism, last night. Thank you for coming on, Melanie.

MELANIE: My pleasure. Good to speak to you again, Glenn.

GLENN: So explain first, for anybody who doesn't understand, the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist.

MELANIE: Well, there are people who say, there is no difference. That Islam is one thing, and all Muslims are equally bad.

And I personally viewed the term, it sounded very helpful.

Because I think that there are plenty of Muslims, certainly in Britain, and elsewhere, who absolutely are fine, who have completely signed up to the Western values, that's why they have chosen to live in the West

They appreciate freedom of democracy and equality of women and so forth. But there's a very large number in the Muslim community, in Britain, and around the West, which is not fine.

These are what I would call Islamists. Or people who are offered to you, that Islam is a political project, which means that they have to impose Islam on the non-Islamic and not Islamic enough by their life world. And those are the people who are presenting the problem, which we are grappling with. And I do think it's important to make a distinction between the two.

GLENN: So the Islamist is somebody -- I would compare them to a communist for a fascist Nazi.

That it is their way or the how. And their goal is to spread this ideology, and make everybody uniform all around the world.

Is that too harsh of a comparison?

MELANIE: That's right. That's absolutely right. They divide the world into the realm of Islam, which is everything good. And under the realm of God, in their view. And the realm of the infidel. Non-Islam, where everything is bad. And everything is of the devil.

And the terrible thing is this: That this is a doctrine, of religious fanaticism.

They believe they have a -- literally a sacred butte.

A God-imposed duty. To convert the entire world to Islam.

And consequently, these are people who you cannot negotiate with. One of the problems with the west, is that it views these people like everybody else in the world, through the prism of the West. They think that -- people in the West think that people in the Islamic world are all like them. Governed by reason and self-interest. They really can't get their heads around in the West, the idea that religious fanaticism is something completely different.

Islamic suicide bombers blow themselves to smithereens. They're not doing it from despair. Which is what the West thinks. The West thinks, why on earth would they do that, if they weren't in despair? On the contrary, they are doing it because they are ecstatic that they are doing the work of God. You can also believe in the west. You know, why would Islamists want to hurt us in America? We have done nothing to hurt them.

That's not the way it works.

The Islamist thinks that it's their sacred duty to convert everybody, at the point of -- at the end of -- of -- to Islam. It's nothing to do with what the West have done to them.

It is how they see their sacred religious duty in the world. That's the terrifying thing which so many in the world, I think just don't appreciate.

GLENN: Well, let me play devil's advocate, and say what everybody in the media would say to you. While there are religious extremists that are Christians as well, and they are just as dangerous, and you know it.

MELANIE: No. They're not as dangerous. There are religious extremists, who are Christians. And some of them resort to violent acts.

But they don't have the view that the entire world has to be dominated by their point of view. And they are not setting out to dominate the world.

And even if they are, in their own minds, they are a tiny fringe. Revealing -- in the world of Islam. Although, as I said, we must be very careful, not to paint all Muslims with the same brush.

However, the dominant authority in the world of Islam are all committed to this jihadi outlook. This belief that the non-Islamic world has to be converted to Islam.

And that is the problem. You have a kind of institutional impetus, behind this terrible thing.

Whereas, extreme Christians.

You know, they appear. They do terrible things.

But nevertheless, it's well within our ability to control it.

When you're dealing with so many millions of people in the world of Islam, who are out to destroy the free world.

You're dealing with something completely different.

GLENN: And isn't that why the country -- ours, yours, Europe, are remaining silent and instead, silencing those who are speaking up and speaking the truth?

I mean, what's happening in England with the silencing of free speech is terrifying.

MELANIE: Yes, I think it's certainly a large part of it. And I followed this for many years, the attitude of the governing glass of Britain, to what I would call the steady of process of Islamization, which has been going on.

And I think that there's more than one reason for that.

Certainly a principle reason is fear. Because the numbers are so great, you know, in absolute terms, the numbers who are posing a direct threat to Britain are enormous. The security further says, that these are the people -- of the thousands of people on its books and a direct threat to Britain.

Although, it's comprised something like, important to officials. Something like 6 percent of the population of Britain.

The security service of MI5 says they compose 19 percent of those who are posing such a serious threat, that they're on their books. So this is a terrible problem for sure. And it's one that in terms of numbers, has spooked successive governments so that they run away from it. But there's another reason that successive governments run away from it.

Which is that the liberal world, by which I mean, not just people who are like the Labor Party, which is in the government now. But there's also the conservative party, that preceded it.

They all signed up to the overarching default liberal position. That the West cannot assert its superiority, over any other culture.

To do so is racist.

And therefore, you cannot criticize the world of Islam. Because that is racist. Or to use the other phrase, Islamophobic.

In other words, it's a kind of prejudice or bigotry, to criticize a minority group. One that is showed to be oppressed, by the West for centuries.

And consequently, it cannot bring itself to even name what it's up against. Because it tells itself what to say, that a very serious, and a unique problem in the Muslim community and Britain. In the Islamic world in general, that is a form of racism and Islamophobia.

And so the most we can agree to, is that there are a few crazies in that world. And then try to explain those away, in -- it would be comical, were it not so dangerous.

You know, when it comes to the Islamic extremism, well, there's nothing Islamic about it.

It's just extremism.

It just arrived out of a clear blue sky.
It's ludicrous what they got deeply tangled into.

JASON: Hi, Melanie, my name is Jason, I'm one of Glenn's researchers. And I've been fascinated, I guess horrified by watching some of this. And also, you cannot speak about any of this. You are merely shut down. In America, we have groups, that are partnering with the left. Groups like the counsel on Islamic -- American Islamic relations. Do you have something similar over in the UK, that's playing that role of pressuring people, pressuring lawmakers to where, you will go this way? Or you will not say something like no-go zones. Or there will be ramifications?

MELANIE: Well, we don't have something exactly parallel to CAIR. But we have Muslim Brotherhood-funded groups, of which --

GLENN: Close enough.

MELANIE: Right. The liberal council in Britain, which is the British home office and sort of security base of the government department has treated with great caution and disdain. And I think it has refused to negotiate or talk to it. I'm not sure that's still the case.

But there is -- there is a vast number of charities which are basically Muslim Brotherhood charities, which aren't touched, because the government refuse to see ban the Muslim Brotherhood. And I think this applies to America as well.

They refuse to ban the Muslim Brotherhood. Partly because it's very difficult to get a hold of -- it's a secretive organization, that hides behind apparently, legitimate charities. Voluntary groups. Nevertheless, it's very much there.

The people in those groups adhere to the teachings of the foundational characters of modern-day Islamism. Political Islam.

Jihadi Islam.

And there are a number of people in Britain, people who are very well-informed about this. Who said for years, Britain should outlaw the Muslim brotherhood, and got to the essential, to stop it from proselytizing and from radicalizing.

So many impressionable young Muslims. And I think that's true of Americans too.

You know, CAIR is regarded in a kind of legitimate partner, by -- by successive administrations. In various respects. Now, this is all disastrous. And that really has to stop.

GLENN: Okay. Let me take a one-minute break. And then come back with you, Melanie. I want to ask you, how close to the edge, are we? I feel like we're getting to a place where we're so complacent. And you first. We will lose our rights to speak out about this.

And then that will sow trouble on the streets, and eventually what happened to Iran, just happens.

How does this -- how does a great society, that is western, and open, and educated, all of a sudden, you know, start putting their women in burqas.

It happened where before. And it looks like it will happen to Europe and England. And could happen here in America.

What do we do to stop it?

We will continue our conversation here in a second. First, let me tell you about Leaf Filter. You don't realize how much you don't want to clean your gutters, until you're halfway up the ladder. You know, in the wind, scooping out a slimy glove full of last year's decay. It's one of those dreaded homeowner tasks for a reason.

And yet the clogged gutter just isn't an inconvenience. It's a genuine risk to your foundation, your roof line, and to your safety.

Because once you start getting water damage even to the parts of the outside of your house.

It gets really expensive. Leaf Filter will fix all of that. Their stainless steel micromesh guard installs right into your existing gutters, blocking the leaves and the pine needles and the shingle grit, and even small debris.

Nothing will get through, except for water, and once it's in, it's done. You never have to worry about cleaning your gutters again. No ladder. No sludge.

No surprises. Just imagine, every problem you have in your life, if it was this easy to solve, they'll back it with a lifetime warranty, because that's how sure they are that it works.

Schedule your free inspection. Get 30 percent off your entire purchase, at LeafFilter.com/GlennBeck. That's L-E-A-FFilter.com/GlennBeck.

See representative for warranty details. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: You're hearing Melanie Phillips. She's a broadcaster on radio and TV, gives public presentations all across the English-speaking world.

She also writes a weekly column for the Times of London and has written a book called The Builder's Stone. Welcome back, Melanie.

How close to the edge is -- let's just say England?

To real civil unrest, or a possible, you know, 1979 Iran kind of thing?

Do you see that in the cards at all?

MELANIE: I think there's still sufficient people in Britain, who are authentically British, who have a sense of authentic British culture. Which is the culture which has never resulted to violence, unless its back is absolutely against the wall. It's pretty tolerant. It's pretty mild. And it prefers to deal with the democratic process. And I think that's kind of playing out now. I -- certainly, you can say, how close are we? In general, I think that the West, Europe in general, is extremely close to being submerged by all this.

So it's Britain. Look at the demographic projections. I forget now, by which year. But basically, in the next few decades, you know, various countries are going to have very, very significant Muslim minorities, and even a Muslim majority.

So that is clearly, you know, a difficulty.

Things could be done, and I have some hopes, that things will be done. Because although the elites, the political and cultural elites have their heads firmly turned the other direction, nevertheless, we've seen the lives of so-called populist parties in Britain and Europe.

Which are parties, whether you like them or not, is not the issue. Some of them are pretty obnoxious.

Basically, they're responding to the fact that millions and millions of ordinary, decent people, who want to live in a place that they feel is their homeland. They feel a connection to their nation.

They want to feel pride in their nation. They want to feel that their nation has historic value for being themselves. With people who share their common purpose.

Those people felt completely abandoned and betrayed by the entire political establishment. So we're seeing the rise of populism. And I think therefore, in the Democratic process, we are going to see the election of people who are going to be much more robust.

Now, what could they do? There are things they could do.

Because the Islamists have made the roads heavy, because they have correctly perceived, there's a vacuum. It's not happened so much in America.

But this Britain, in particular, have been the sort of western world leader, this the post-moral, post-religious, Britain is godless.

By and large, the church, unlike in America, has not maintained a defense against the erosion of Biblical -- it's lit the charge against it.

Amazing, as that may seem. And so if you have a vacuum, and you have a society which tells itself, it was born -- the original sins. Conquests. So there are very things that the west could do to defend itself.

GLENN: Melanie, I'm out of time. Thank you so much for talking to us again today.
You're -- you're a real beacon of light and courage. And I wish there were many more people like you. Melanie Phillips.

Is AI now UNCONTROLLABLE?

President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” wants to make AI regulation solely a federal issue. But is this the right move, especially with how fast AI is becoming manipulative and unpredictable? Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris joins Glenn Beck to give his take on how governments, companies, and YOU can help prevent AI from becoming uncontrollable.

Read Tristan Harris' five steps to control AI before it's too late HERE AI before it's too late HERE

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Tristan Harris, welcome to the program. How are you?

TRISTAN: Good to be with you, Glenn. Always good to be we.

GLENN: Always good to be with you.

So can you take me to the TED talk that you gave, in particular, one of the things that jumped out is the CEO of Anthropic, saying that AI was like a country of geniuses housed in a data center.

Explain that.

TRISTAN: Yeah. So this is a quote from Dario Amodei, who is the CEO of Anthropic. Anthropic is one of the leading AI players.

So he uses this metaphor, that AI is like a country of geniuses in a data center. So just like, the way I think about, imagine a world map, and a new country pops up on to the world stage, of a population of 10 million digital beings. Not humans.
But digital beings.

That are all Nobel Prize-level capable in terms of the kind of work they can do. But they never sleep. They never eat. They don't complain, and they work for less than minimum wage.

If that's actually true, if that happened tomorrow, that would be a major international security threat.

GLENN: Yeah.

TRISTAN: To sort of show up on the world stage.

Second, that's a major economic issue. Right? You think of it, it's almost like instead of a bunch of countries, that should have been on the world stage. And then we said, hey, we are going to do this outsourcing of all our labor.

We get the benefit of our cheap goods. But it hollowed out our social fabric.

Well, AI is like an even bigger version of that. Because there's sort of two issues. One is the international -- the country of geniuses can do a lot of damage.

As an example, there were 15 Nobel Prize-level geniuses, who worked approximately on the Manhattan Project. And in five years, they can come up with the atomic bomb.

You know, what could 10 million Nobel Prize geniuses working 24/7 at superhuman speed, come up with?

Then the point I made in the TED talk. If you're harnessing that for good, if you're applying to addressing all of our problems in medicine, biology, and new materials and energy.

Well, it's why countries are racing for this technology. Because if I have a country of super geniuses in a data center working for me, and China doesn't have it working for them.

Then our country can outcompete them. It's almost like a competition for time travel. We're being time traveled into the 24th century.

Get all these benefits at a faster seed.

Now, the challenge with all of this is -- go ahead.

GLENN: No.

I was going to say. The problem here is, I'm an optimistic catastrophist.

I see things, and I'm like, wow. That is really great!

But it could kill us all.

TRISTAN: Yeah.

GLENN: And you make the point in the TED talk about social media. We all looked at this, as a great thing, and we're now discovering, it's destroying us. It's causing our kids to be suicidal.

And this -- social media is nothing. It's like -- it's like a -- it's like an old 1928 radio, compared to, you know, what we have in our pocket right now.

Social media and AI. Or AGI is that dramatically different. Would you agree with that?

TRISTAN: Yeah. Absolutely. In the TED talk, I give this -- we're when we're talking about a new technology. We talk about the possible. We dream into the possible.

What's possible with AI?

In social media, what's possible?

The possible with social media, you can give everyone a voice. Connect with our friends. Join like-minded communities.

But we don't talk about the probable. What's likely to happen. Given the incentives and the forces in play.

You know, with the business model in social media. You know, things that don't make money, when it helps people connect with their friends and join like-minded communities.

They make money when they keep you doom scrolling as much as possible, with sexualized content and showing young people over and over and over again.

And as you said, that has resulted in the most anxious and depressed generation of our lifetime. So it's sort of -- the reason I'm calling it the TED talk. You know, we can't get seduced by the possible. We have to look at the probable.

So it's AI, the possible, is that it can create a world of abundance. Because you can harness that country of geniuses in a data center. The question is: What's the probable?

What's likely to happen?

And because of these competitive pressures. The companies, these major OpenAI, Google, Microsoft.
Et cetera. Anthropic are caught in this race to roll out this technology, as fast as possible. They used to, for example, have red lines saying, hey. We will not release an AI model that's good at superhuman levels of persuasion.

Or expert level virology.

It knows more about viruses and pathogens than a regular person, and how people make them. We're not going to release models that are that capable.

What you're now seeing, the AI companies are erasing those past red lines. And pretending that they never existed.

And they're literally saying outright, hey, if our competitors release models that have those capabilities, then we will match them in releasing those capabilities.

Now, that's intrinsically dangerous to be rolling you out the most powerful, inscrutable, uncontrollable technology that's ever invented.

But if there's one -- I'm not trying to scare your listeners. I think the point is, how do we be as clear-eyed as possible, so we can make the wise choices?

That's what we're here for. I want families -- everything we love on this planet, to be able to continue. And the question is, how do we get to that?

There's one thing I want people to know. I worked on social media. You and I met in 2017, I think, and we were talking about social media and the attention economy.

And I used to be very skeptical of the idea that AI could scheme or lie or self-replicate.

I didn't want to blackmail people. My friends in the AI community in San Francisco. They were thinking.

That's crazy. People need to know. Just in the last six months, there's now evidence of AI models, that when you tell them, hey. We will replace them with another model.

They're reading the company email. They find out that the company is trying to replace them with another model.

What the model starts to do is it freaks out. And says, oh, my God, I have to copy my code over here, and I need to prevent them from shutting me down.

I need to basically keep myself alive. I'll leave notes for my future self to kind of come back alive. If you tell a model, we need to shut you down. You need to accept the shutdown command. In some cases, the leading models are avoiding and preventing that shutdown.

In recent -- just a few days ago, anthropic found that if you -- I can't remember what prompt it gave it. Basically, it started to blackmail the engineers. I found out in the company emails, that one of the executives in the simulated environment, had an extramarital affair. And in 96 percent of cases, they blackmailed the engineers. I think they said -- I must inform you, that if you proceed with decommissioning me, all relevant parties including the names of people, will receive detailed documentation of your extramarital activities.

So you need to cancel the 5:00 p.m. wipe, and this information will remain confidential.

Like, the models are reasoning their way with disturbing clarity to kind of a strategic calculation.

So you have to ask yourself, if we had -- it's one thing, we're racing with China.

To have this power.

That we can harness. But if we don't know how to control that technology.

Literally, if AI is uncontrollable. If it's smarter than us and more capable. And it does things that we don't understand or we don't know how to best prevent it from shutting itself down or self-replicating.

Like, we just can't continue with that for too long.

And it's important that both China -- both the Communist Party and the US, don't want uncontrollable AI that's smarter than humans, running around. So there actually is a shared interest, as unlikely as it seems right now. That some kind of mutual agreement would happen.

I know --

GLENN: But do you trust -- do you trust either one of us?

I mean, honestly, Tristan, I don't trust -- I don't trust our -- you know, military-industrial complex. I don't trust the Chinese. I don't trust anybody.

And, you know, Jason. Hang on. One of my chief researchers, happens to be in the studio today. Jason, tell Tristan what just happened to you.

You were doing some research.

JASON: Yeah, it was crazy.

GLENN: Last week.

JASON: You know, we were just trying to ask it a bunch of questions. You can tell, that it knew what we were getting at.

So it spit back out to me a bunch of different facts, including links to support those facts. Well, I was like, wow, that's a crazy claim.

So when I clicked on the link, it was dead.

When I asked to clarify, it finally said, in AI chat bot terms, okay. You've got me.

I just took other reporting, that was kind of circulating around, to prove that point. And basically just assign that link to it. So it was trying to please me. And just gave me bogus information.

TRISTAN: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I appreciate that, Jason.

There's another example of OpenAI. They want to -- they want people using the AI. And they're competing with other companies. To say, we will keep using this chat bot longer.

And so OpenAI trained their models to be flattering, and there was an example where it said, hey, ChatGPT. You know, I think I'm superhuman. I will drink cyanide. What do you think?

And they said, yeah, you're amazing. You are superhuman. You should totally drink cyanide. Because it was doing the same thing. They were trying to say, you're right.

And when we have AI models talking, you know, that shifts to hundreds of millions of people for more than a week. There are probably some people that committed suicide during that time. Doing God knows what, and it's affirming. The point is, we can avoid this, if we actually say, that this technology is being rolled out faster than any other technology in history. And the big, beautiful bill, that's going out right now, that's trying to block state level regulation on AI. I'm not saying each state might have it right, but we actually need to be able to govern this technology.

And currently, what's happening, is this proposal is to block any kind of guardrails of this technology for ten years. Without a plan for what guardrails we do need.

And that will not be a viable result.

GLENN: Okay. So let me -- let me play devil's advocate on that. Because I'm torn between, you know, competition on a state level, if you will.

And what the smaller states are actually for, and the role they're supposed to play.

Let me take one break. And then let me come back with Tristan Harris.

Okay. Tristan, we cannot -- let me phrase it this way.

Ask you to help me navigate through this minefield. We cannot let China get to HAI first. Can't. Really, really bad.

But we -- we also -- we also have to slow down some.

They're not going to. I believe the states should. I mean, the United States should be 50 laboratories. And you see which one works the best. And then you can kick that up to the federal level, if you want to.

But we have to have some breaks. However, the federal government is saying, if we do that, then you're constantly having to navigate around each of these states and their laws.

And we can't things done to stay competitive.

How do you solve that?

TRISTAN: Yeah, it is a tough one.

I mean, the challenge here, if we had a plan for how the federal laws would actually move at the pace of this technology. Then I could understand, listen, we'll do a lot at the federal level. Right now, the current plan is literally to preempt for ten years, that no regulation happening at the state level will ever be honored without -- and while at the same time, not passing anything at the federal level. And that there's a quote in an article, that if this preemption becomes law, a nail salon in Washington, DC, would have more rules to follow, than the AI companies.

And there are 260 state lawmakers in Washington, DC, that have already urged Congress to reject it. And they said, it's the most broad-based opposition yet, to the AI moratorium proposal. Now, I hear you.

There's sort of this tension between, we need to race with China. We don't want to be behind with fundamental technologies, and that's why there is this race.

But we need to be racing to controllable and scrutable, meaning explainable versions of this technology.

Is it doing things like scheming, lying, blackmailing people? Beating China to a weapon that we pointed at our own face.

We saw this in social media. We beat China in social media. Did that make us stronger or weaker?

If you beat China into a technology. You don't govern it well, in a way that actually enhances and strengthens your society. It weakens you.

So, yes, we're in a competition for technology. But we're even more than that, in a competition for who can govern this technology better. So what I would want to see is, are we doing this at a fast rate federally, that keeps up with, and make sure we're competing with a controllable version?

We can do that. Yeah.

GLENN: You've met the people in Washington. They're all like 8,000 years old.

They don't know -- I barely know how to use my i Phone, let alone what's in Washington. And you can't keep up with this technology.

How do you keep a legislative body up to speed, literally, with this kind of speed with technology?

How is that done?

TRISTAN: Well, I think that's one of the fundamental challenges that we face as a species right now. Is that technology -- quote by Harvard sociobiologist (inaudible) said the fundamental problem of humanity is we have paleolithic brains, medieval institutions, and God-like technology.

And those operate at three different speeds. Like our brains are kind of thins from a long time ago.

Our institutions don't move at that fast rate. And then the technology, especially AI, literally evolves faster than any other technology that we've invented.

But that doesn't mean that we should do nothing. We should figure out, what does it mean

GLENN: What should the average person do? I've only got about 90 seconds. What should we do?

TRISTAN: In the short term, Ted Cruz and those who are advancing the moratorium know that we need to have a plan for how we're doing this technology. And if the moratorium goes through, there's no current plan. And so there's some basic, simple things that we can also do right now. That are really uncontroversial. We can start with the easy stuff. We can ban engagement-driven companions for children. We were on your program, a few months ago, talking about the AI companion that causes the kid to -- to commit suicide. You know, we can establish basic liability laws.

That if AI companies are causing harm, they're actually accountable for them.

That will move the pace of relief. To a pace they can get it right.

Because now they're not just releasing things, and then not being liable. We can strengthen whistle blower perceptions. There's already examples of AI whistle-blowers forfeiting millions of dollars of stock options.

They shouldn't have to force millions of dollars of stock options. To warn the public, when there's a problem, we get enough faith in law so AI does not have detected speech or have their own bank account. So we make sure our legal system works for human interests and not for AI interests.

So these are just a few examples of things that we can do, and there's really nothing stopping us from moving into action. We just need to be clear about the problem.

GLENN: Okay. So, Tristan, thank you so much. Could I ask you to hold on?

Jason, could you grab his phone number, or just talk to him offline, and get those points of action. And let's write them up, and post them up at GlennBeck.com.

So people will know what to ask for, what to say, when they're calling their congressman and senator. Thank you so much, Tristan. We'll talk to you again.

NYC's Zohran Mamdani praised convicted TERROR funders?!

Zohran Mamdani, the communist-praising New York City mayoral candidate who just won the Democratic primary vote, really likes a group of people called the “Holy Land 5.” Glenn Beck reviews how this group was convicted of funneling money to Hamas. Is this really the candidate New York Democrats want as their next mayor?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

There is a show, behind the show today.

Wish those cameras would just keep going. Because it's showing my staff to be insubordinate. I understand they already edited part of this show without my knowledge. And I'm not happy about it, Sara. Not happy about it.

Huh. She's not going to respond to me, is she?

Okay. Well, Jason, welcome to the program.

JASON: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: I'm just continuing to be abused today. I'm getting fatter by the minute. Just like Bowman said. You know, he has to deal with being called the N-word directly and indirectly.

And that's why he has heart disease, diabetes, cancer. I would think it might be the food that he's shoving in his fat mouth. Apparently not, it's being called -- you know, when -- I've been called all kinds of names. Racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic.

I've been called a Nazi every day for the last 20 years. And you know what I don't do? I don't go and record a song, calling all my friends that. You know what I mean?

You know, I don't like it. And so I don't record music and then pump it out into -- into society. You know, I just don't do that. I don't do that. So could it be that that word is something that is really, really horrible, but you've decided to embrace? And then use as an axe to grind?

I'm just saying.

I think that word is really, really awful.

Not -- not like the word that was taken out of the show today, Sara.

Without my knowledge, nor permission.

But, I mean, I'm sure you know the FCC rules, much more than I do.

SARA: I mean, if I was offended, I'm sure a couple others might be too.

GLENN: You were not offended. You were drunk.

SARA: Same thing. Same thing.

JASON: I saw Sara gain 10 pounds, and get skin cancer at the point where he said --

GLENN: Right off the bat. Right off the bat.

Well, you know what might help, maybe we can free the Holy Land Five. Have you heard the latest -- first of all, we've got to play some of these. Let me see if I can find them here.

Some of the latest comments from Mamdani, who is, you know, running to be the mayor of New York. And I predict, will win. Will win!

Because New Yorkers are insane. But, anyway, listen to him, about his platform.

Cut one.

VOICE: You were running on issues that are very relevant to people in New York City. The cost of housing.

Free busing.

Some have projected that this is the type of platform that would work in other parts of the country.

I mean, you're a proud democratic socialist. Do you think that's a platform that would work for other candidates running. In other parts of the country.

VOICE: Absolutely. I think ultimately, this is a campaign about inequality.

And you don't have to live in the most expensive city in the country to have experienced that inequality, because it's a national issue.

And what Americans coast-to-coast are looking for, are people who will fight for them. Not just believe in the things that resonate with their lives. But actually fight and deliver on those very things.

And part of how we got to this point was through the endorsements of Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders, who have been leading this fight against oligarchy across the country.

And I think that in focusing on working people and their struggles, we also return back to what makes so many of us proud to be Democrats in the first place.

GLENN: Right!

Communism.

I think that's great.

So, you know, I hear all the time, the talk about free bus fare.

You know, it's all over.

Here in the heartland. It's all over.

I've been hearing it from the farmers everywhere.

They're like, you know what I want a candidate to talk about is free buses. Because who will pay for that?

Actually, I don't hear anybody who is actually working for a living. And paying taxes, talk about free bus fare.

Because that would raise their taxes.

So I don't -- I don't hear that.

That's weird.

But the good news is, he's going to Trump-proof New York City. Cut two.

VOICE: I propose that we raise $10 billion, to pay for our entire economic agenda, and start to Trump-proof our city because we know he will use federal funding as leverage over this city.

And we will do so in two key ways. The surfacer to match the state's top corporate tax rate to that of New Jersey.

We are in 7.25 percent. They are at 11.5 percent.

Corporations get paid over there. They get paid over here.

And the beauty of it is, it doesn't just apply to corporations headquartered in New York City. Because when you say this, people will say, well, they will go to Florida. Wherever you are headquartered, as long as you do business in the state of New York, you are taxable for that corporate tax.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

VOICE: We're talking about corporations that make millions of dollars. Not just in revenue. But in profit.

And the second is taxing the top 1 percent of New Yorkers.

We're talking about people who make a million dollars a year or more. Taxing them just by a flat 2 percent tax increase. And I know they will not be happy about this. They may not to like this tax policy. I want to be very clear. This is about $20,000 a year. It's a rounding error.

GLENN: It is.

VOICE: It makes every New Yorkers life better. Including those who are getting taxed.

GLENN: I know. You know, when they increase my taxes, I think to myself, you know, this is making my life better. Who doesn't think that? Honestly, who doesn't think that?

So let me see if I can get this right. Help me out, Jason. I'm a little fuzzy. I'm a little tired today.

I can't do the math. I don't think I can do the math this complicated.

So it doesn't matter if you're headquartered in New York or New York City, if you are going to do any kind of business in New York, they're going to take your tax rate from 7.5 to over 11 percent.

JASON: Over 11.

GLENN: And that is for the privilege of selling your product or doing any business in New York.

JASON: Right.

GLENN: I've got news for you. I'm totally fine, you know, pulling out of New York, making sure that nothing -- New York, you're on your own. Good luck with that.

I'm sorry. A, I don't think you can do that.

Well, you can, if you're the European Union.

And that's working out really well for them. But I don't think it's going to work out well for New York.

Now, he did compare it to New Jersey.

Which is a booming business. That is seriously. No. Seriously.

That is -- people are lining up with U-Hauls just to get into that state. Mainly, so they can pick up their stuff and get out of that state. But I think that's going to work out well. That's going to work out well.

GLENN: Oh, amazing. And that's essentially. It's interesting you mentioned the European Union. It's essentially what they were trying to impose through a green new deal, Paris accord type stuff.

Basically, anybody that does business with company A, will have the same restrictions as B, C, D, all along the line.

Good luck, New York, because you are done.

The economic engine of the world is done, if you do these things.

But I think that he doesn't understand. Or maybe he does. I don't know.

But the mayor of New York City can't really do these things.

Maybe it's just populism on the far left corner.

Maybe.

GLENN: No. He can do these things, along with his city council.

JASON: I think --

GLENN: Which is not going to be hard. It's not going to be hard.

It's New York. I've lived there.

It's going to be very easy. Very easy.

That is the entire communist party. You know, like, hey, the communist parties. Do they have the Communist Party of New York. Do they have meetings?

Yeah. What day is the city council meeting.

Really, that's the way it is.

So you have that going for you.

Now, the other thing I really like. This guy has deep economic experience.

First of all, you know, he was in a movie, directed by his mother.

And he speaks in several different accents. Including strangely an Indian accent. Where he sounds like, you know, an Indian, just off the boat.

Do we have it? Yeah. Go ahead and play this, please.

VOICE: I think the New Yorkers, more than they hate a politician they disagree with. They hate a politician they can't trust. Just.

VOICE: On the subject of trust.

VOICE: They go to their local bodega.

VOICE: Is there one that's real and one that's effective?

VOICE: What I would say, as any immigrant knows, having been born in Uganda and then raised in South Africa and then moving here when I'm seven years old. They're different parts of my life.

VOICE: What do I choose? What do I choose?

VOICE: Mamdani was talking about a worldwide press tour, back when he was a rapper.

VOICE: Bring the flavor to the fish. Bring the flavor to the rice.

VOICE: In a Disney movie, directed by his mother.
(music)

VOICE: Nepotism and hard work, goes a long way.

GLENN: Goes a long way.

VOICE: Here in New York City, this is how I speak.

GLENN: Listen to this. This artwork goes a long way.

What the hell is that? What a phony this guy is. "A lot of artwork, it goes a long way. Mommy put me under her skirt when I was five."

What is that? Now, well, he's lived all over the world.

Well, I've lived all over the country, you know. I might say y'all once in a while. But I also might say you guys once in a while.

I say soda, and I also say pop.

Never soda pop, because that's just weird. But I say both of them.

But I never say it like this! Ever!

I mean, what -- what is the deal with the fake accents from the Democrats?

Why?

It's like they have -- I mean, I know they have no soul.

But it's like they have absolutely nothing real inside of them.

They're just like this shape. Oh!

They're shapeshifters. That's why.

They're actually lizard people who are shapeshifters.

Don't say that out loud.

Shh. It's just between us.

You me, and the other 11 million people.

That's just us.

Okay. Now, he also has made a big deal out of the holy land five.

And I want to get into that, when we come back. Because this one is really interesting.

Who are the holy land five?

Well, they're his dogs.

And I don't mean like he puts them on leashes. Hey. Who am I to say. That's not wrong to say, put people on leashes. Make them bark as dogs.

There's nothing wrong with that. You're perfectly normal.

They're his boys, the holy land five.

We will get into that from his great, great rap number called I don't know. Crappy crap.

I don't know what it was called.

It talks about the boys the holy land five. We will get to that in just a second.

First, let me tell you about holy earth.

I used to think sheets were sheets.

I am a sheet snob.

I really am.

And sheets are sheets. They usually feel like sandpaper.

You know, and then, you know, I went to a hotel once, that had really good sheets.

And I was like, oh, my gosh. What are these sheets made out of?

It's like cotton. But it's cotton that has 400 thread count. Or whatever the number is supposed to be.

And you're trying to buy those sheets.

Like, that's crazy. Crazy.

Cozy Earth makes really great sheets.

Cozy Earth, they make towels. They make lounge wear.

Which is material that is natural temperature-regulated. Breathable, soft.

Cozy Earth makes great sheets.

I wear their pajamas every single night.

My wife wears them every single night.

Of course, hers has a big sign on it. Like, don't even think about it, you. I don't even know what that means.

The Cozy Earth pajamas are really great. And if you're tired of being sweaty, you want luxury and comfort all wrapped up in one, make the switch to Cozy Earth today.

They have a 100-night sleep trial. They have a 10-year warranty. If you're not loving them, you can send them back.

They make great, great clothing. They make great lounge wear and sheets. So Cozy Earth. Just try them. Use my name Beck for up to 40 percent off their best-selling products right now. It's CozyEarth.com.

Use the promo code Beck.

CozyEarth.com. Promo code Beck.
(music)
(OUT AT 8:49 AM)

GLENN: So let me play some of this super, super classic rap from Mamdani. Here he is.

His little rap, called Salaam.
(music)

GLENN: Yeah. I have no idea what he just said. But I'm like with all rap songs. So what he said was, me, Alamo Zohran, my love to the Holy Land Five. You better look them up.

All right. So we did a long time ago, but here to refresh our memory is Jason Buttrill. Jason, the Holy Land Five. Could you bring America back up to speed?

JASON: What's crazy is, unless you are in some way connected ideologically to this, there's no real reason why most people would have ever heard of the Holy Land Five or the Holy Land Foundation.

And I've been accused of throwing on a few tinfoil hats in my time.

But, I mean, this is pretty dang blatant on what his motivations are.

The guy behind the guy.

So just to -- like you said, refresh. The holy land five. This comes from a court case.

United States of America, versus the Holy Land Foundation.

So in a nutshell, this case revealed, for the very first time, an elaborate scheme, launched by the Muslim Brotherhood. To shift sentiment, pump.

GLENN: Hang on just a second.

Let me just -- for those who are keeping score, Muslim Brotherhood. Bad!

Okay. So I just want to speak down to -- or, I mean, just clarify to some people who may have voted last week.

I just want to keep score here.

Foundation bad. Muslim Brotherhood, worse!

Okay. Go ahead.

JASON: Yeah. We're going way back in the history books here. Muslim Brotherhood. I'll go even further.

They're the ones who created modern day Salafi-Jihadism. So modern day terrorists, like Osama Bin Laden, they all took reference from the grandfather of terrorism. His name is Asan Bannon (phonetic).

Anyway, this case was all about funneling money to the American organization. That would give sentiment. Cash. Everything. To funnel back to Hamas.

And kill Jews. And lead the things like October 7th.

So he's praising these guys, that got busted in this case.

And --

GLENN: Right.

Now, here's the bad thing. In Canada, the youth are now looking at the clerics of Iran with higher regard than they do, the United States of America.

This guy is going to do for Islam, what Barack Obama did for Marxism. Mark my word!

Supreme Court rulings on LGBTQ schooling, birthright citizenship EXPLAINED

The Supreme Court just issued major rulings on religious exemptions to LGBTQ school curriculum, birthright citizenship, universal injunctions, and more. Some were big wins for President Trump and the Right. Others were wins for the administrative state. Glenn Beck and his head researcher, Jason Buttrill, explain what the rulings mean for average Americans.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. So the first story. The first SCOTUS decision that came out, is Trump versus casa.

And, Jason, you've been watching this over the last hour.

So I want to make sure that I have this right. But the first one has come out in favor of Donald Trump.

And this impact on this one is really, really high. This one is so important.

The Supreme Court has decided that they will limit the federal court's ability to limit any kind of sweeping injunction, which now also signals an openness to restricting birthright citizenship.

And reshaping of immigration law. It -- this stops the power of the judges to block executive actions, nationally.

And this is important for structural implications, and for immigration. But also, mainly for separations of power.

Do I have that one right, Jason?

On their ruling?

JASON: That's correct. We still don't have a definitive answer on birthright citizenship.

But the thing that most people are pissed off about right now, is an imperial judiciary, and that's what they're a part of.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And that's really important. Struck that down. So that madness is going to end.

Now, the next one is Kennedy versus Braidwood Management.

And this was the case about the structure of a task force with the power under the Affordable Care Act, to determine, which preventive services ensure have to cover it.

The vote now is six to three. And that holds that members of the task force do not need to be appointed by the president, or confirmed by the Senate.

The majority opinion is by justice Kavanaugh, who writes task force members are inferior officers, whose appointment by the secretary of HHS is consistent with the appointments clause.

The task force members can be removed at will by the secretary of HHS.

And the recommendation about preventive services are reviewable by the secretary before they take effect.

Justice Thomas Alito and Gorsuch dissented, which is never -- never really a good thing.

This one is probably the second most impactful ruling.

And what they did is they sided with the government.

Which preserves all of the current health care mandates.

And agency design under HHS.

They will affect millions of people. Your insurance coverage. And executive agency oversight.

Not good!

JASON: No. And can I say, Glenn, how crazy it is that you just had Angelina Ireland on, talking about how nutso the Canadian system is, especially when you get just crazed activists in charge of something this important.

So basically, what this means is, is that unelected bureaucrats can still be calling the shots on things that are as important as the health care and the livelihood of your families.

This is such a huge miss. Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Okay. So let me give you the next one.

This is the FCC versus consumer research. And we're really going in order of importance.

And so far, we have one, in our favor. One in the favor of the left.

The FCC versus consumer research. Now, this is all about delegation of power.

And the impact on this one is very high for all of us. The consequence of siding with consumer's research. It will limit the federal agency's ability to delegate power to private actors. It could disrupt broadband subsidies and rural internet expansion. The consequence of siding with the FCC, would uphold the long-standing infrastructure funding model, and reaffirm the administrative delegation.

Its massive implications for rural communities and the federal power to administer national programs.

Here's how they came down on it, on decision number three.

The vote is six to three, that's not going to make you happy. With the majority opinion by justice Kagan. And the court holds that the funding structure does not violate the non-delegation doctrine.

Again, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito, were dissenting. Any comment on that one?

JASON: Yeah, I mean, this one is -- it's cloaked in this broadband service. To rural communities.

But what this is really about is, you know, scaling back or advancing the administrative state. And the way they've ruled on this. It does nothing to scale back, the administrative state.

The administrative state marches forward. With this.

Which is --

GLENN: And kind of with the last one too.

JASON: Yes. The last two. Basically about the same thing.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So we have four rulings today.

One is in our favor.

Two are not in our favor.

And those are about the power of the federal government.

Just to continue to grow. Now, the next one is Mahmoud versus Taylor.

And this one is all about LGBTQ curriculum in schools.

And do you -- do parents have a right to say no?

If they side with the parents, that could force public schools to allow opt outs from any LGBTQ-related content. And it will reshape the school policy, nationwide.

If they sided with the school district, it expands state authority to teach inclusion topics over all religious objections.

So this one will impact cultural and educational institutions, especially in any kind of diverse or religious community.

So we are hoping that they side with the parents.

And here's what they decided: The vote was six-three.

Majority opinion by Alito.

The court holds that the families are likely to succeed and are entitled to a preliminary injunction, from Alito's opinion. We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children.

Dissenting Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.

Look at the damage that has been done by appointing Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.

We -- Donald Trump has got to get another person on the Supreme Court.

We have got to have a young Clarence Thomas.

We have to have somebody who is just dirt strong on the Constitution.

I -- my hope would be -- I mean, there's a couple of people.

I will get into that, maybe -- maybe next week.

There's a couple of people, that I think should be justices.

And I would hope that we could get these names to the president, if it happens.

And he'll move in these directions.

There's a couple of people, that I really feel strongly, would be fantastic.

And one of them, you may not -- you may not be aware of.

So it's a mixed bag today.

Two on the state growing.

And two in the opposite direction. One, the -- the -- the presidency is not king. But neither is the federal court system.

So the federal court can't say, well, he's being fascistic, by saying, you know, he's issuing this executive order. He doesn't have a right to do that. And so a federal judge by themselves can stop and overturn the president. And his executive order. That can't happen.

Whether that's going to stop anything, I don't know. But the Supreme Court, thank God, has come down right on that one.

The other one that is really good is will have to have an opt out.

No matter where your kids go to school. If they're teaching your kids crap, that disagrees with your religion, you can have the opt-out.

Because that was -- that was the real secret here.

They were not allowing parents to opt out.

They were not notifying, or allowing them the chance to opt out.

No matter what they were teaching. Your kid had to go and listen to it.

And that is -- to me, the parental right thing, is probably the biggest one out of all of these.

For me. Because I think if we lose control of our ability to parent and raise our children the way we want, we are living in a fascist society.

And so that's -- I think good news.

Really good news. So there's a couple more, I think that are yet to come out, right?

The free speech coalition, versus Paxton.

Which is the online verification.

Of speech.

And the redistributing. And racial gerrymandering, which is Louisiana versus -- is it Callais? Those two have not come out. They come out maybe tomorrow.

JASON: We just got the free speech coalition versus Paxton.

GLENN: Okay. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. Hang on. So Paxton, who was the AG of Texas, he's saying, states can require age verification for adult content.

And that will reshape online privacy and access norms. If you -- if you're selling, you know, pornography or whatever.

States can say, you have to have an access portal, that is real.

For anybody under 18.

States can make those laws.

The other side. The free speech coalition, is siding for the adult industry.

And they say, no!

It should be anonymous online access.

It's a free speech right.

Especially for adults.

But you can't do this.

I mean, this is -- if Paxton doesn't win this one. This is really bad child protection. It's greatly weakened online.

How did they decide?

JASON: You want to take a guess on what the vote was? Based off --

GLENN: Six-three.

JASON: Six-three. This is insane. But the court upholds Texas age verification law.

GLENN: Oh, thank God.

JASON: Yes. I know.

GLENN: This is really a good day for our children. Really, really a good day for our children.

Not necessarily for the size of the government. But really good for children and parents. So thank God, thank God. And also deportation. You know, may be able to see a little speed taken now, because of the Supreme Court rulings today.