RADIOOctober 10, 2022

Do THESE 2 signs hint the US is preparing for NUCLEAR WAR?

As world tension with Putin/Russia continue to rise, is the Biden administration quietly preparing for a possible nuclear war? Glenn and Stu discuss 2 recent signs that the U.S. is gearing up for a worst-case scenario: First, President Biden himself spoke of ‘Armageddon’ during a speech last week. And, second, a new HHS press release detailed a recent, $290 million government purchase of an ANTI-RADIATION MEDICINE! In this clip, Glenn details what exactly this drug does and what it could mean for the US moving forward…

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So yesterday, in an address to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, he said the country, under his leadership, is as close to Armageddon as it has been since the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s.

Now, I don't know if that gets a crowd all whipped up. Oh, my gosh. Yes!

I want to give. I want more senators.

So he was in New York. And he started talking about Vladimir Putin, threatening to use a nuclear weapon. And he said, Putin was not joking.

No joke!.

When he talks about the use of tactical nuclear weapons, or biological and chemical weapons.

We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon like this, since Kennedy, and the missile crisis. Now, Russia has been backed into a corner. And you don't take a lion, and back it into a corner.

With no escape. White House says the Biden administration has communicated directly with Russian officials about what kind of response using a nuclear weapon would bring. Officials aren't going to share publicly what the U.S. response would look like, but they said it would be catastrophic.

I don't think there's any such thing as the ability to use a tactical weapon, and not end up with Armageddon.

This is what Biden said last night. So I think we know what the response would be. It's not like, you know what, we're just going to -- we're going to write a strongly worded letter. That's right. We'll have the UN get together.

There's not such a thing as the ability to easily use a tactical weapon, and not end up with Armageddon. Okay. My question is: Can we have a conversation about this?

Is Ukraine really worth vaporization! Are we really sure the guy who has been called -- and I'm quoting, the wrongest man on foreign policy ever, are we really -- we're really just going to do this, and have no discussion about it? Don't you think we should just stop?

A very disturbing thing came out yesterday. The HHS put out a press release. Hey, just, you know, normal stuff here. Just normal stuff. We're just buying some stuff in case everybody is eradiated. What?

We do this all the time. No. No. No.

Actually, you don't. The press release, they announced, they had purchased 290 million dollars' worth of a -- an anti-radiation drug. Now, you think of -- what are those pills that you get for thyroid?

STU: Iodine.

GLENN: Iodine pills.

Okay. We have a bunch of those. We have a bunch of those. That's not this. That's not this. This is $290 million worth of acute radiation sickness medication. These are not potassium iodine pills.

You know, you can get those in your go bag. It's well-known that the state and federal government agencies have been stockpiling that since the 1950s.

The state of Delaware, just announced -- the state of Delaware -- gee, who is from there?

Just announced, it will be handing out free potassium iodine tablets to residents on October 13th.

What? So potassium iodine.

Or iodate, is the stuff that you take to prevent your thyroid from absorbing radiation from the dust that you might breathe in. Now, apparently we have -- the U.S. government has enough potassium iodine, for every American to have three days worth of doses. So there are 330 million of us. That would mean we would have a billion tablets. So I think we're covered on that. So what did we spend $300 million on?

Well, the -- the drug that the HHS says it just purchased, was called N-plate.

And it's made by a company named Amgen. I'm looking into the company now.

I'm trying to see if there's any other way to explain this, other than, they know something that we don't know.

Now, this drug is used to treat acute ARS. That's Acute Radiation Syndrome.

It's used to treat blood cell injuries, from severe radiation poisoning. So if you don't take the thyroid blocker stuff, you end up with acute radiation blood poisoning, I guess.

So here's what's interesting: Until this press release, there is no evidence of any kind that our research could find, that Health and Human Services have ever had anti-radiation poisoned medication, just sitting around on hand.

We don't carry of a stockpile of this. Now, here's the other interesting thing.

If you look at the MDSS. The material at that time safety sheet, you look for this drug from -- from Amgen. The storage half-life for N plate, which is in an IV bag, is required to be refrigerated at all times. And it only has a shelf life of 18 months.

Why did we just spend 300 million dollars on something we've never purchased before?

It is for serious radiation poisoning. It has to be refrigerated at all times. And it only has a shelf life of 18 months.

This isn't some pill, that we're buying and tossing in some warehouse. And store it for the next 50 years. This drug goes bad in 2024.

Hmm. Now, we have stuff like this -- insulin, has to kept cold, until it's used.

And it lasts as long as about the average goodly fish. And our government just bought 300 million dollars of this stuff.

Huh. Why? I can come up with two answers. Now, I -- we are researching this. This is based on initial research.

So things could change. But the two things, that I think of is, who is Amgen?

What did we just give $300 million for? Who is this company? How are they connected?

Is this another pharmaceutical company? Okay. That's the first one. I don't think that's really right. I am afraid, that our government, either knows nukes are coming, or is itching for nukes to come.

I -- I just -- I can't explain what we're doing. We are antagonizing every step of the way in this war. And, by the way, we started some more tough talk, against China yesterday.

Now, if I'm China, think this through with me. And I could be -- this is just off the top of my head, ridiculous. You know, Glenn. This is the kind of stuff I throw out in meetings. So no thoughts on this one yet. If I'm China, and I've cozied up to Russia. Is it in my best interest to keep Russia from using a tactical nuke?

STU: I would say yes.

GLENN: Why?

STU: Because you don't want to start a world war, and wipe out not only the global economy, but something that could obviously spread to your country as well.

GLENN: Okay.

So MSNBC is reporting right now: Biden warning about nuclear Armageddon. But if you look at all of the ways this plays out, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, clean. Nothing happens to them. Okay?

It's just nuclear -- nuclear nightmare. Global warming to about 7,000 degrees, in Europe, Russia, and the United States.

Now, you need them as buyers. But what will they need?

They will need to rebuild, and remember who we rebuilt Europe? We did. And did that work out well for us? Or not so well?

If you're trying to destroy the United States, you think long-term. They've got a plan to destroy the United States. But wouldn't it be easier, if somebody else destroys -- destroys the United States, and in the same time, it takes out their other competition of Vladimir Putin. And it just kind of cleans everybody's clock. And gosh the world will need help. And we'll have to rebuild it. And gosh, we have the ships and everything. And, well, now we have Taiwan, so we have all the chips too. And we could just -- we'll go in there, and we're not occupying. No, no, no, no. We're not occupying. We're just rebuilding. We're helpers. Now, that's a crazy, out there theory, based in nothing, but my own, you know, fiction writing skills.

But I don't know if China is really all that opposed to this. Have your enemies wipe each other out.

So here we are, with Zelinsky yesterday, speaking at an Australian tank conference. I don't even know what a tank conference is. Is that what where they're selling tanks. Hey, let's talk tanks.

STU: Tank-a-thon

GLENN: I don't know. I don't know. But he suggested that NATO should engage in what he calls preemptive action, to dissuade them from using their nukes against Ukrainian soldiers. And he said, we should attack them first and show them what sort of things would happen if they choose to use nukes.

Now, I don't know if I've said this yet. I mean, for a while. And maybe we should like a cuckoo clock, at the top of every hour, just remind people. Zelinsky was a comedian. Zelinsky was a comedian. It's like if we elected Gilbert Gottfried, or Martin Lawrence. And like, hey, should we nuke them, or should we use F-35s? Maybe F-35s or F/A-18s, what do you think?

I don't know! I mean, what are we doing? Now, we have a comedian telling us how we should respond. We then have the Pentagon who brought us the wonderful debacle of Afghanistan. Put us into this confrontation. Is currently flexing its muscles. You know the Pentagon yesterday said, you know what, if China blocks the trade route, with Taiwan, don't worry about it. We have the air and sea power to break that -- that blockade. What!

Am I the only person in America that says, let's not go to war? This election is vital. It's the most important election -- shut up. We have a president who says, we're close to Armageddon. The guy doesn't know what time it is for pudding. And he's telling our Pentagon, the guy who is wrong about everything, telling our Pentagon what to do. And our Pentagon has completely lost their mind.

You -- you -- we are watching a play, except this time, you know, it's a -- it's a whodunit murder mystery. Let's go to the play. Except, the ones who get killed, are the audience.

You've got to go out and vote. Because if you don't, you'll have another. You know, you'll have another really, really deeply trained brain, like Fetterman.

Back in a minute. All right. Going to let you in on something big. Have to act quickly. Blinds.com is showing their gratitude to you and all of their customers by having a friends and family sale. Right now, through October 12th, during the sale, you can save up to 45 percent off everything. Plus, door busters. Now, because they don't have the usual markups. They don't have showrooms, and everything like that. 45 percent savings on their already low prices is a no-brainer. Blinds.com believes that ordering online, doesn't mean sacrificing style or service. You can get the latest styles of curtains, shades, shutters, and a whole lot more.

And if you need help selecting what you want, they have great design experts, who can do live consultations. If you need help with measuring or installation -- not that I did.

Anyway, it's blinds.com. Their friends and family sale, now through October 12th. Sorry, 45 percent off statewide.

45 percent, edit here, will you, Sara.

STU: We're live here, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, crap. At blinds.com. Blinds.com. Rules and restrictions may apply. Ten-second station ID.
(music)
Uh-huh.

Oh, by the way. I just want to let you know. The Army has fallen short of their recruiting goal. But only by 25 percent.

STU: Oh, really?

That's good. Good news. Good news. So quick question on your theories here. Because I can understand why I -- I sensed a little bit. Why you went to many negative conclusions on this purchase.

GLENN: Let's start at the beginning. Why does the president give a speech at a fundraiser. And say, hey, we're so close to Armageddon.

STU: Right. And then you add on the fact that we're buying all this anti-radiation medication.

GLENN: That expires in 18 months.

STU: In 18 months.

So in a -- let me just put this in a different world. For just a second.

GLENN: Okay. Like a sane one.

STU: Let's say we were in a sane world.

GLENN: We're not. But okay.

STU: We were in a situation, where we believe, the right thing to do is to stop Russia from advancing.

We're on Ukraine's side. We're fighting them with missiles. And some really smart person in the room says, hey, guys, this could spin out of control.

We should, first of all, consider whether we should continue to do this the way we're doing it. And secondarily, we should start preparing for the worst. Right?

And if -- if we in this different world, there was an attack. Then we wound up getting nuclear weapons falling on our territories.

GLENN: We want those ventilators.

STU: We would say, hey, what a bunch of idiots in the White House, for not purchasing this medication in advance.

GLENN: Amen, brother, I'm with you. I'm with you.

STU: So could you make an argument, that in a different world, in a different administration, they're acting competently here and preparing for a worst-case situation?

GLENN: Sure. I could even argue that in this world. I could.

Now, you have to ask yourself: Then why aren't we having wall-to-wall conversations about nuclear war?

STU: Yeah. Because if they're taking it seriously enough to spend $300 million on medication.

GLENN: Are we?

STU: I mean, I think -- look, I don't -- I have no faith in the Biden administration to do the right thing in any situation. But there are a bunch of people in our military. Who look at these things. And are probably. Maybe we're skeptical of this entire operation.

GLENN: I'm saying. Are we, the people?

We are being led by the elites. And we are being led into death chambers, it seems, almost every day.

Look at what -- look at what we're doing. Look at what we're doing. On every front.

Well, you know what, we're not going to prosecute criminals. Oh, okay. All right.

Streets are on fire. In some cities. Literally. Really bad idea.

You know what, we're just going to keep printing money. Yeah. That's fine.

Are you kidding me?

How are you going to afford food in a year. And they just keep spending. They just keep spending.

How about gas?

We're depleting the strategic oil reserve. The lowest it's been in 40 years.

That not only ties to what we're doing with gasoline and the environment. But it also goes right directly to war. The strategic oil reserve is for that. So he's saying we have Armageddon possibly coming. And 25 percent of our goals not being metaphor recruiting people in the military. And we are depleting our strategic oil reserve. Shouldn't we have a conversation about this?

Shouldn't half the America -- half of America, who is only watching CNN, and all the New York Times -- shouldn't they be involved in this? Shouldn't they know? Shouldn't they know? Shouldn't somebody be talking on those channels going, hey, hey. Guys. I just want to let you know. Here's the real picture. Now, what do we do about it?

They're not having that conversation.
(music)
They're hearing, Putin, bad.

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

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.

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.

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.