RADIO

SPOILER ALERT: De Niro’s “Zero Day” is Actually CONSERVATIVE?!

Many on the right were anticipating Robert De Niro’s new Netflix series, “Zero Day,” to be woke garbage, especially since De Niro has an extreme case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. But Glenn watched the show and came to a shocking conclusion: The show’s message is surprisingly … conservative? Glenn breaks down the series and why he believes that De Niro’s character in “Zero Day” and Donald Trump share the same villains and solution. So, where’s the divide?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I watched -- and so you know, I watched this, so you didn't have to.

The new -- oh. He was -- he was raging bull. Robert De Niro. I watched the new Robert De Niro series. It was like six episodes. And he plays a former president.

And, you know, it's zero day. And all of the, you know, lights and communications and everything go out for a minute.

And killed all these people. And airplanes crashed out of the sky. And what happened?

And he's got a commission now from the new president to be. Because he's the most trusted guy in the world.

He's so credible. And he's got to figure out -- will he figure out in time?

And so I watched this thing. Because I really want to understand, Robert De Niro. I think the guy has lost it.

Wouldn't you agree? I mean, I think the guy has really, truly gone over the edge on his Trump Derangement Syndrome, you know.

STU: Yeah, definitely on that front.

He's a great actor, but he's never been right on politics. He does seem to have gone to a new level.

GLENN: Just a new level on this stuff.

And I would really like to understand. And so I saw this, and I thought, oh, I have to watch this, because nobody in the audience will. Because it's Robert De Niro.

But I'll watch it, because you want to understand I figured, this was a message film. And it is. It is.

STU: It is. Shocking.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

And so I wanted to know what the message was. And I get to the end of it. And he gives this long speech. And, yes, I am going to spoil the ending.

Because you will not watch it.

STU: This is good. This is encouraging. You're giving a spoiler alert.

Before you say the ending of the movie, and ruin it for everyone.

You actually tell everyone, this is how you are supposed to do it.

The Hall of Fame is kicking in.

GLENN: You're right. And so you're watching this movie. And at first, he's given this commission, which they suspended the Constitution. Okay?

For this committee. Habeas corpus. He can scoop up anyone he wants. He can question them without lawyers. Use enhanced interrogation. Whatever he wants.

He's put on the committee as the head of it. Because he would never do those things. Then he does all of those things. He puts a plastic bag over somebody's head as he's questioning them, and he's supposedly the good guy here.

And I'm like, okay. Bob, I don't know what the narrative is on this one.

Unless I'm supposed to hate your character. Because I don't agree with that.

And he eventually comes to the conclusion, hey. Maybe we shouldn't have done -- good for you. Good for you.

But at the end, he gives this speech. He finds out who was responsible for it. And it was surprise, surprise, big tech.

But big tech in cahoots with big money, and people on both sides of the aisle, in Washington, DC. That just think that there has to be a unifying moment. To stop all these crazies, at the fringes.

And it's these -- you know, big kind of Deep State people.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That think that they should control everything. And if they could just get this to wake people up. Then they could pass this bill, that gives them extraordinary powers. And then they can fix the country.

And I'm thinking to myself, okay.

I think Bob, that we agree on the bad guy here. Because that's what's happening.

People on both sides of the aisle, have gone into this Deep State thing. They think they know better that be the average person. They know better that night Constitution. Am I right on this so far?

Right? Isn't that what's happening? Isn't that what we're against?

STU: Right!

GLENN: Right. And then he starts -- he's being told, look, don't. You're going to expose this. It's only going to cause more problems.

Just let these people resign and go away. And at first, he says, okay. And I thought, that can't be the ending here. Because that can't be the ending.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And in the end, again, I'm going to wreck it. But you don't want to watch a Robert De Niro movie. Or series. My God. It took me six hours to go through this thing. My wife was away. So it was me and the dog. And Bob De Niro.

So I'm watching this thing. And at the end, he says, no. You know what will he'll us, is transparency.

And knowing who the bad guys are, and the good guys. And so here are the bad guys.

And he's standing in the joint session of Congress, and he says, the guy behind the Speaker of the House. He's one of the bad guys. And he everybody goes, whoa! And people on this side of the aisle, and that side of the aisle.

And he starts naming names. And I'm like, Bob! I don't know why you're crazy. I really don't know what you're so upset about because that's -- if that's what the left feels like, that's what the right feels like too! You know, that's kind of like where we're, hey. Kash Patel, go in!

Release the secrets. Stop the -- give us transparency. Radical transparency. It's the only thing that's going to heal us.

STU: It's interesting. I mean, I think part of it is everyone wants to see themselves as Jimmy Stewart.

The reason why that movie connected with so many people. Everyone has that vibe, right?

Everyone thinks that who they are. It's like when we say all the time. How can you think that going against the machine means going against the Republicans who were completely out of power? Going back a couple of years.

Of course, what do you mean? When you're going against the machine.

You should be standing up against the machine!

Who was in Washington. And they're mainly all Democrats. I don't understand how you don't see that. They never do. Because no one wants to see themselves as working with the machine.

GLENN: But I think it's more than that.

STU: I do too.

GLENN: I think blindness because of their hatred of Donald Trump. And look, you could say, Donald Trump is going to turn into a dictator.

Well, maybe. I don't have your crystal ball. All right? Maybe. I don't think so.

STU: I hope not.

GLENN: I don't think so. He says a lot of things. It's Donald Trump, that you should not take seriously. But you -- you want to understand that he means direction. Right?

Isn't that the seriously --

STU: Literally.

GLENN: You don't want to take it literally.

You want to take it seriously. Got it?

So he says a lot of things. No. He's not going to go in and shut down the press.

However, will he go out and expose everything?

Yeah. And, yeah. Does he like the right?

No!

No!

Did you see him speak at CPAC?

He was like, we're not really conservative.

We're common sense.

That kind of bothered me. Because, no. I'm a conservative.

It means conserving the things that our Founders put together. Then I'm a conservative. But I don't know how he defines it, in that moment.

But I would -- I would consider that common sense as well. But I don't understand, how can people like Robert De Niro have all this hatred, when he's exposing all of this corruption?

Now, you can say, that's not enough to balance the budget. And you're right.

It's not!

But it's a good start. How -- how you could say, look, if people were doing things, that they weren't supposed to be doing, and funneling money, without the -- you know -- and is going to NGOs, to a political organization. Like the Tides Foundation.

I think those people should go to jail.

And I would say that if they were, you know, funneling that money to some Republican Tides Foundation.

STU: Yeah. I think a lot of it. You mentioned the Trump derangement syndrome.

I think a lot of this comes to, the opposition to Trump is essentially the main part of their identity at this point. Like, it's been -- it's been --

GLENN: It's who they are.

STU: Yeah. It's who they are. There's that book Atomic Habits. That is a big best-seller. And one of the things that it talks about in there, to not think about -- if you want to do something, you want to go and run a marathon one day. You have to go out there, and you have to take those first steps. You have to run a couple of times. You will probably feel bad the first time you run out there.

But one of the ways he talks about, thinking about it, is not thinking about it as I need to go out and run. I need to go out and run.

You have to think about it as, I'm a runner. And it becomes part of -- for example, your level of self-control, Sara, would you say minimal for Glenn. Would you say -- would you say it's impressive, in any way? No. Right? It's pathetic.

GLENN: It might have been this weekend, when my wife was gone. Might have been.

STU: We know that if we went to your home right now. There would be piles of Hostess wrappers around your television set.

GLENN: Well, no, she came back late last night, so those are all in the garage.

STU: Right. But however, there's one thing I know, you never, ever screw up on. Which is taking a drink.

I'm serious. You are a recovering alcoholic. It's how you describe yourself. It is your identity.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: It is part of it.

GLENN: No. It's part of it.

STU: It's part of your identity.

GLENN: The control against it.

STU: It is part --

GLENN: The disease does not define me.

STU: I'm not saying all of your identity. When it comes to alcohol consumption.

You don't get up every day and say, eh. I won't have a drink today.

You are a recovering alcoholic. You know you won't drink, and you don't let that enter into your mind, that there's any other option, except when I bring out a bottle and tempt you.

But other than that, generally speaking.

GLENN: And I'm for that. I'm for more of that. I love the smell of whiskey. It's a problem. It's a problem. You're making me want a drink.

STU: My point here is, you have that rule, it's not just some rule. Like, oh, when you used to say, I won't drink until 5 o'clock. That's a little rule you made for yourself.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: Now you never drink, you're a recovering alcoholic. It's something you're sober. You have been sober for this amount of time.

GLENN: I'm going to drink. If you don't get this back to Trump Derangement Syndrome.

STU: The point is, for a lot of these celebrities, opposition to Trump is the same as you're a recovering alcoholic. They just see it as a central part of their identity.

And if they are proven wrong, it not only overturns some point they made on television.

It overturns their identity when it comes to politics.

GLENN: Yeah. Because they don't -- they haven't allowed for any other option.

They haven't allowed for --

STU: Right.

GLENN: Look, I hated -- I mean, I didn't mind the Republican Party.

I thought the Republicans in this whole, you know, let's go march off to war and save the world, 30 years ago, I was all for that.

I was like, yeah, that's because we're right.

You got to leave an option, you know, a door open to new information, going, you know, I think I have to take the exit here.

STU: Yeah. Understand your fallibility.

We've made thousands of points about Donald Trump.

Some of them I think were really, really right. Some of them were wrong.

And we talked about those that were wrong. It's important to be able to allow yourself to understand, sometimes you're not right on something.

And it shouldn't be something that you possess and hold to your heart, like it's your religion.

That's where they are. Well, God is real. And if he's not, then my whole life dissolves. That's where they are with Trump. Trump is evil. Trump is Hitler. And if he's not Hitler, I -- my entire life has been a waste. That's how they think about it. And I don't think they can come out and understand --

GLENN: I really -- I saw that movie. And I thought, you know, I would have to hit them with a tranquilizer dart first, but I would love to sit down and talk to him.

Because I'm like, I don't understand what you have a problem with. Because I'm for all of those things that you have in the movie. I'm for all of those things, that I think you were trying to preach as your message. I don't get it, Bob. I mean --

STU: He would have a really dumb response too.

GLENN: Yeah. It's not worth having that conversation. Because it wouldn't be an honest one.

TV

The Globalist Elites' Dystopian Plan for YOUR Future | Glenn Beck Chalkboard Breakdown

There are competing visions for the future of America which are currently in totally different directions. If the globalist elites have their way, the United States will slide into a mass surveillance technocracy where freedoms are eroded and control is fully centralized. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to break down exactly what their goal is and why we need to hold the line against these ominous forces.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Dark Future: Uncovering the Great Reset’s TERRIFYING Next Phase

RADIO

Barack & Michelle tried to END divorce rumors. It DIDN'T go well

Former president Barack Obama recently joined his wife Michelle Obama and her brother on their podcast to finally put the divorce rumors to rest … but it didn’t exactly work. Glenn Beck and Pat Gray review the awkward footage, including a kiss that could compete for “most awkward TV kiss in history.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Now, let me -- let me take you to some place. I think kind of entertaining.

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

She does it with her brother. Who knew? It's -- you know, I mean, it's so -- it's a podcast with two brothers. Right?

And -- and it -- they wanted to address the rumors, that they're getting a divorce. And this thing seems so staged.

I want you to -- listen to this awkward exchange on the podcast.

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

MICHELLE: Oh, yeah. The rumor mill. It's my husband, y'all! Now, don't start.

OBAMA: It's good to be back. It was touch-and-go for a while.

VOICE: It's so nice to have you both in the same room today.

OBAMA: I know. I know.

MICHELLE: I know, because when we aren't, folks things we're divorced. There hasn't been one moment in our marriage, where I thought about quitting my man.

And we've had some really hard times. We've had a lot of fun times. A lot of adventures. And I have become a better person because of the man I'm married to.

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

GLENN: I believed her. Now, this is just so hokey.

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

MICHELLE: Get you all teared up. See, but this is why I can't -- see, you can take the hard stuff, but when I start talking about the sweet stuff, you're like, stop. No, I can't do it.

VOICE: I love it. I'm enjoying it.

MICHELLE: But thank you, honey, for being on our show. Thank you for making the time. We had a great --

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

GLENN: They're not doing good. They're not doing good.

Okay. And then there was this at the beginning. And some people say, this was very awkward. Some people say, no. It was very nice.

When he walks in the room, he gives her a hug and a kiss. Watch.

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

PAT: Does that look like they're totally into each other?

GLENN: Well, I give my wife a peck on the cheek, if she walks into a room.

PAT: Do you? If you haven't seen her in months and it seems like they haven't, would you kiss her on the cheek? Probably not.

GLENN: No, that's a little different. That would be a little different. But I wouldn't make our first seeing of each other on television.

PAT: Yeah, right, that's true. That's true.

GLENN: But, you know, in listening to the staff talk about this. And they were like, it was a really uncomfortable -- okay.

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

But I don't think that rivals -- and I can't decide which is the worst, most uncomfortable kiss.

Let me roll you back into the time machine, to Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley. Do you remember this kiss?
(applauding)

GLENN: He turns away, immediately away from the camera. Because he's like.

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

GLENN: It was so awkward. When that happened, all of us went, oh, my gosh. He has only kissed little boys. What are we doing? What is happening?

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

And then there's the other one that sticks out in my mind of -- and I'm not sure which is worse. The Lisa Marie or the Tipper in Al Gore.

VOICE: The kiss. The famous exchange during the 2000 democratic convention was to some lovely, to others icky.
(laughter)

GLENN: That's an ABC reporter. To some lovely, others icky.

And it really was. And it was -- I believe his global warming stuff more than that kiss.
(laughter)
And you know where I stand on global warming.

That was the most awkward kiss I think ever on television!

PAT: Yeah. It was pretty bad. Pretty bad.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

So when people who are, you know -- these youngsters.

These days. They look at Barack and Michelle. They're like, that was an awkward kiss.

Don't even start with me.

We knew when we were kids, what awkward kisses were like.

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

She claims, there was not been one moment in their marriage.

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: She just said a while ago. A month or a year ago, she hated his guts for ten years. She hated it.

GLENN: Yeah. But that doesn't mean you'll give up.

PAT: I guess not. I guess not. Maybe you enjoy being miserable.

I don't know.

GLENN: No. I have to tell you the truth.

My grandmother when I got a divorce, just busted me up forever. I call her up, and I said, on my first marriage.

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

And my sweet little 80-year-old grandmother, who never said a bad thing in her life said, excuse me?

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

I said, what's happening. And she said, I really thought you would be the one that would understand. Out of everybody in this family, I thought you would understand.

And I said, what?

And she said, this just -- this just crushed me when she said it.

Do you think your grandfather and I liked each other all these years? I was like, well, yeah.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Kind of. And she said, we loved each other. But we didn't always like each other. And there were times that we were so mad at each other.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

STU: But we knew one thing: Marriage lasts until death!

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

GLENN: Okay. All right. That's just not necessary.

RADIO

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

The media is insisting that President Trump's tariffs caused a rise in inflation for June. But Our Republic president Justin Haskins joins Glenn to debunk this theory and present another for where inflation is really coming from.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Justin Haskins is here. He is the president of Our Republic. And the editor-in-chief of stoppingsocialism.com.

He is also the coauthor with me at the Great Reset, Dark Future, and Propaganda War.

So, in other words, I'm saying, he doesn't have a lot of credibility. But he is here to report -- I don't even think you're -- you're -- you were wrong on this, too, with the tariffs. Right?

JUSTIN: Well, at some point, I was wrong about everything.

GLENN: Yeah, right. We are all on the road to being right.

But this is coming as a shock. You called yesterday, and you said, Glenn, I think the tariff thing -- I think the president might be right.

And this is something I told him, if I'm wrong. I will admit that I'm wrong.

But I don't think I'm wrong.

Because this goes against everything the economists have said, forever.

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

All of these things. You have been study this now for a while, to come up with the right answer, no matter where it fell.

Tell me what's going on.

JUSTIN: Okay. So the most recent inflation data that came out from the government, shows that in June, prices went up 2.7 percent. In May, they went up 2.4 percent. That's compared to a year prior. And most people are saying, well, this is proof that the tariffs are causing inflation.

GLENN: Wait. That inflation is -- the target is -- the target is two -- I'm sorry.

We're not. I mean, when I was saying, it was going to cause inflation. I thought we could be up to 5 percent.

But, anyway, go ahead.

JUSTIN: So the really incredible thing though. The more you look at the numbers. The more obvious it is, that this does not prove inflation at all.

For starters, these numbers are lower, than what the numbers were in December and January.

Before Trump was president. And before we had any talk of tariffs at all.

So that is a big red flag right at the very beginning. When you dive even deeper into the numbers, what you see is there's all kinds of parts of the Consumer Price Index that tracks specific industries, or kinds of goods and services. That should be showing inflation, if inflation is being caused by tariffs, but isn't.

So, for example, clothing and apparel. Ninety-seven percent, basically.

About 97 percent according to one report, of clothing and apparel comes overseas, imported into the United States.

GLENN: Correct.

JUSTIN: So prices for apparel and clothing should be going up. And they're not going up, according to the data, they're actually going down, compared to what they were a year ago. Same thing is true with new vehicles.

Obviously, there were huge tariffs put on foreign vehicles, not on domestic vehicles. So it's a little bit more mixed.

But new vehicle price are his staying basically flat. They haven't gone up at all. Even though, there's a 25 percent tariff on imported cars and car parts. And then we just look at the overall import prices. You just -- sort of the index. Which the government tracks.

What we're seeing is that prices are basically staying the same, from what they were a year ago.

There's very, very little movement overall.

GLENN: Okay. So wait. Wait. Wait. Wait.

Wait.

Let me just -- let me just make something career.

Somebody is eating the tariffs. And it appears to be the companies that are making these things. Which is what Donald Trump said. And then, the -- you know, the economist always saying, well, they're just going to pass this on in the price.

Well, they have to. They have to get this money some place.

So where are they?

Is it possible they're just doing this right now, to get past. Because they know if they jack up their price, you know, they won't be able to sell anything. What is happening?

How is this money, being coughed up by the companies, and not passed on to the consumer.

JUSTIN: Yeah, it could be happening. I think the most likely scenario, is that they are passing it along to consumers. They're just not passing it along to American consumers.

In other words, they're raising prices elsewhere. To try to protect the competitiveness with the American market. Because the American market is the most important consumer market in the world.

And they probably don't want to piss off Donald Trump either, in jacking up prices. And then potentially having tariffs go up even more, as a punishment for doing that.

Because that's a real option.

And so I think that's what's happening right now.

Now, it's possible, that we are going to see a huge increase in inflation. In six months!

That's entirely possible.

We don't know what's going to happen. But as of right now, all the data is suggesting that recent inflation is not coming from consumer goods being imported, or anything like that.

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. It's not housing, is it?

Because the things to make houses is not going through the roof. Pardon the pun. Right?

It's not building.

JUSTIN: No. No. The way the CPI calculates housing is really stupid. They look basically primarily at rent. That's the primary way, they determine housing prices.

GLENN: Okay.

JUSTIN: That so on they're not talking about housing costs to build a new house.

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

And then they try to use rent data, as a way of calculating how much you would have to pay if you owned a house, but you had to rent the same kind of house.

And that's how they come up with this category.

GLENN: Can I ask you a question: Is everybody in Washington, are they all retarded?
(laughter)
Because I don't. What the hell. Who is coming up with that formula?

JUSTIN: Look. I mean, sort of underlying this whole conversation, as you -- as you and I know, Glenn.

And Pat too. The CPI is a joke to begin with.

GLENN: Right.

JUSTIN: So there's all kinds of problems with this system, to begin with.

I mean, come on!

GLENN: Okay. So because I promised the president, if I was wrong, and I had the data that I was wrong, I would tell him.

Do I have to -- out of all the days to do this.

Do I have to call him today, to do that?

Are we still -- are we still looking at this, going, well, maybe?

JUSTIN: I think there's -- I think there is a really solid argument that you don't need to make the phone call.

GLENN: Oh, thank God. Today is not the day to call Donald Trump. Today is not the day.

Yeah. All right.

JUSTIN: And the reason why is, we need -- we probably do need more data over a longer period of time, to see if corporations are doing something.

In order to try to push these cuts off into the future, for some reason. Maybe in the hopes that the tariffs go down. Or maybe -- you know, it's all sorts of ways, they could play with it, to try to avoid paying those costs today.

It's possible, that's what's going on.

But as of right now, that's not at all, what is happening. As far as I can tell from the data.

GLENN: But isn't the other side of this, because everybody else said, oh. It's not going to pay for anything.

Didn't we last month have the first surplus since, I don't know. Abraham Lincoln.

JUSTIN: Yes. Yes. We did. I don't know how long that surplus will last us.

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

I don't think I've ever heard that before in my lifetime. Hey, United States had a surplus.

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

I think it was like 20 something years ago, was the last time that happened. If I remembered right.

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

I actually think there is an argument to be made. That this whole strategy could work, if American manufacturers can dramatically bring down their costs. To produce goods and services.

So that they can be competitive.

And I think that advancements in artificial intelligence. In automation. Is going to open up the door to that being a reality.

And if you listen to the Trump administration talk. People like Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Commerce. They have said, this is the plan.

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

Automation. That's going to make us competitive with manufacturers overseas. China is already doing that.

They're already automating their factories. They lead the world in automation.

GLENN: Yeah, but they can take half their population, put them up in a plane, and then crash it into the side of the mountain.

They don't care.

What happens to the people that now don't have a job here? How do they afford the clothes that are now much, much cheaper?

JUSTIN: Well, I think the answer to that is, there's going to be significantly more wealth. Trillions of dollars that we send overseas, every year, now in the American economy. And that's going to go into other things. It's not as though -- when this technology comes along, it is not as though people lose their jobs, and that's it. People sit on their couch forever.

The real danger here is not that new markets will not arrive in that situation. And jobs with it. The problem is: I think there's a real opportunity here. And I think this is going to be the fight of the next election, potentially. Presidential election. And going forward.

Next, ten, 20 years. This is going to be a huge issue. Democrats are going to have the opportunity, when the AI revolution goes into full force. They will have the opportunity like they've never had before.

To say, you know what, we'll take care of you. Don't worry about it.

We're just going to take all of the corporate money and all of the rich people's money.

And we will print trillions of dollars more. And you can sit on your couch forever. And we will just pay you. Because this whole system is rigged, and it's unfair, and you don't have a job anymore because of AI. And there's nothing you can do. You can't compete with AI. AI is smarter than you.

You have no hope.

I think that's coming, and it is going to be really hard for free market people to fight back against that.

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

Because the -- you know, I thought about this.

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

If -- if the tech is going to grow and grow and grow. And they will start being -- they will be responsible for taking the jobs.

They won't be real on popular.

So they will need some people that will allow them to stay in business, and to protect them.

So they're going to need to be in with the politicians.

And if the politicians are overseeing the -- the decrease of jobs, they're going to need the -- the PR arm of things like social media. And what it can be done.

What can be done now.

I was thinking, at the time. Google can do.

But they need each other.

They must have one another. And unless we have a stronger foundation, and a very clear direction, and I will tell you. The president disagrees with me on this.

I said, he's going to be remembered as the transformational AI president.

And he said, I think you're wrong on that.

And I don't think I am.

This -- this -- this time period is going to be remembered for transformation.

And he is transforming the world. But the one that will make the lasting difference will be power and AI.

Agree with that or disagree?

JUSTIN: 1,000 percent. 1,000 percent. This is by far the most important thing that is happening in his administration in the long run. You're projecting out ten, 20, 30 years ago years.

They will be talking about this moment in history, a thousand years from now. Like, that will -- and they will -- and if America becomes the epicenter of this new technology, they will be talking about it, a thousand years from now, about how Americans were the ones that really developed this.

That they're the ones that promoted it, that they're the ones that does took advantage of it.
That's why this AI race with China is so important that we win it.

It's one of the reasons why. And I do think it's a defining moment for his presidency. Of course, the problem with all of this is AI could kill us all. You have to weigh that in.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

Well, we hope you're wrong on that one.

And I'm wrong on it as well. Justin, thank you so much.

Thank you for giving me the out, where I don't have to call him today. But I might have to call him soon. Thanks, Justin. I appreciate it.

TV

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.