RADIOMay 07, 2024

Is the Economy About to Return to 1970s-Era Stagflation?

After April’s dismal jobs report released, some experts started wondering whether America has entered a period of stagflation. But what does that mean? And should we trust the data? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to break it all down. Plus, she reviews “one of the most painful” videos she has ever watched, featuring Biden economic adviser Jared Bernstein trying his hardest to explain why the Federal Reserve’s never-ending money printing is fine.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, the author of the book, you will own nothing. The former investment banker. Carol, yes -- or last Friday, I think it was. The jobs report came out. It was much lower than expected.

And I started seeing things like Bank of America saying, we're in stagflation now.

Are we? And if so, what is it?

And what does it mean?

CAROL: Well, let's talk about some of these data points, Glenn. And then we can go into stagflation. First, we've seen a couple of bad data points. And as we've talked about before. The data is garbage. So we're doing the best we can, what it is they're telling us, without any sense of the actual reality behind us.

We saw before the jobs report, that the first quarter GDP was down, about a percent lower than expectations. Down to 1.6 percent on an annualized basis.

Then we get the April jobs report. And that is also down. It's the slowest job gain. That we've seen in -- I think about six months.

Again, if you believe the data. And what that first is telling me, is that all of this money, that the government has spent to basically window dress the economy. To avoid the double-digit recession.

Remember, we did have a recession. Two quarters of negative growth back in '22. Then we popped out of it. Then we expected that it would employ it down. The government ran these massive deficits, about two times the historical average, on a debt to GDP basis.

That we would normally see. And they tried to prop up the economy. So it wouldn't show we were in a recession. At a very expensive cost, by the way. Normally, when you have an expanding economy, you would see a shrinking deficit. They have did you not opposite.

They ran a big deficit, to try to create this appearance. And with an interest rate. Financing that deficit. You know, at the largest point in 15 years.

GLENN: Right.

CAROL: So we know we are not getting a good return now, on this window dressing. And it is not creating these amazing outcomes for the economy.

You know, on the GDP front. On the jobs front.

Which again, could turn around. It's one set of at that time points. Would shift.

Stagflation is something that I talk to you about. I have been talking about for years. As a very possible outcome here.

And it's very much what it sounds like. It's when the economy stagnates. When you have a low growth number. But at the same time, you have inflation.

So you have sort of the worst of all worlds. You're not making gains of productivity.

You're not making, you know, gains in wages and things like that.

The economy is just hanging out. But you get this long-term sticking inflation.

Which again, we said was very likely, because the government continued to spend at these massive levels.

And they were working against what the fed was trying to do, to break down inflation.

So they are actually at this point, a likely cause of long-term inflation.

Because we have to continue to finance these massive deficits.

And so that's the reality of this sticky situation.

When you hear somebody, like JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon saying, I'm worried that the economy is going to look more like the 1970s, than anything else, this is something that they experience. Experience at that period of time. And he is seeing those parallels. Although, we're in a much worse fiscal situation from a fiscal foundation standpoint, than we were strangely enough in the 1970s.

GLENN: Because of our deficit and debt.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: Yes.

So this means that jobs, everything just is the same. It doesn't get better. It could get worse. But it doesn't generally get better for the individual. And prices continue to go up. Right?

That's what --

CAROL: Correct. You're not seeing your growth in wages. You're not seeing massive growth in companies.

The economy just sort of putters along.

You know, you're not seeing the massive layoffs. Or things you might see. With a recession.

Things are just kind of going along.

But not really growing at all.

You're not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. But at the same time, we're encountering that bond, going sticking inflation, that we know destroys purchasing power and is really born, particularly by the middle and working class.

GLENN: All right.

So Carol, I don't want to spend a lot of time on this. Because I have a couple of other things.

But you said, at the beginning of your conversation. You said, if you believe the numbers.

I don't believe the numbers.

CAROL: Correct.

GLENN: But the only reason you change and fudge numbers is not to stop them from looking so good. But stop them from looking so bad.

And the reason why I don't believe them. Is it's just too many times, where they've been adjusted. And there's always adjustments, but not like it's been in the last year or so.

And there's just contradictory information. If you're somebody who is listening now, and, you know, you don't -- you don't necessarily have that. You don't think that, you know, the administration would go that far, and fake numbers.

What leads you to say, if you believe these numbers?

CAROL: Well, like you said, there have been a lot of anomalies in the numbers. And, you know, if you -- you can kind of go back even further. You know, we've changed the method of calculation, of these numbers. At the governmental level, many times since the 1980s. One of the things you have to remember, for something like let's say inflation.

Inflation feeds into things like cost of living adjustments. The amount they have to increase Social Security payments by. So there is an actual reason why it is, that they would want to suppress those numbers.

Another piece of data which I think is very important. Is that entities and individuals no longer want to participate in government surveys.

So we have seen an absolute massive decline in the participation of the data that is being collected by the government.

Which means, when they don't have people in businesses, responding, there are more biases in the data, because it's a smaller subset of people who want to do it.

And it means they have to want to run it through their own adjustments. And seasonal adjustments. In the model.

And it's garbage in. Garbage out. You put bad data in, you'll get bad data out.

There are a lot of things. This isn't just the, hey. The numbers are adjusted massively. And we're seeing the numbers over and over again. Speaking to the bad data. There are some real structural issues as to why many of us think the data sort of isn't worth anything.

GLENN: By the way, we're talking to J.D. Vance in 15 minutes. Right now, we're with Carol Rother. I want to bring up something that is one of the most terrifying things I've ever seen. It's an interview where they're trying to make the case for modern monetary theory. Which is not modern. It's a very old theory. You can just print money, and no big deal. Nothing bad will happen.

And they talked to Joe Biden's economic adviser.

Now, I -- if you would, explain who Jared Bernstein is.

He is -- he is the chair of the council of economic advisers for Joe Biden.

But he's not just some schlub, right?

CAROL: Well, I mean, I will not opine on that. But what I will tell you, is that he's very powerful economically. This is Joe Biden's right-hand adviser who has been, by the way, since the Obama administration, he was Biden's adviser.

And this is the guy who analyzes and interprets economic developments.

He comes up with economic policies. He puts that forth to the president. He's been entrenched in think tanks. He's been a contributor to CBS. He writes op-eds. He was a chief economist, in economic adviser. You know, previously.

This guy is like from the left and far left standpoint. One of the people, who they hang their hat on, to be the economic adviser. And I don't know.

Are you going to play the clip.

It's one of the most painful things I've watched in my life.

GLENN: I want to get your comment on it. And I want to set up. This is a real player in the economy.

This is someone our government depends on.

Listen to him try to explain our deficit, and what's happening with our money. Listen.

VOICE: The US government can't go bankrupt, because we can print our own money.

VOICE: It obviously begs the question: Why exactly are we borrowing a currency that we print ourselves? I'm waiting for someone to stand up, and say, why do we borrow our own currency in the first place?

VOICE: Like you said, they print the dollar. So why does the government even borrow?

VOICE: Well, the -- so the -- I mean, again, some of this stuff gets -- some of the language that the -- some of the language and concepts are just confusing. I mean, the government definitely prints money.

And it definitely lends that money, which is why the government definitely prints money. And then it lends that money, by -- by selling bonds. Is that what they do?

GLENN: No. No.

VOICE: They -- they -- yeah. They -- they sell bonds. Yeah. They sell bonds. Right. Since they sell bonds.

People buy the bonds. And lend them the money.

GLENN: No.

VOICE: So a lot of times. A lot of times. The language and the concepts can be kind of unnecessarily confusing. But there is no question, that the government prints money. And then it uses that money to -- so, yeah.

I guess I'm just -- I can't really talk.

I don't get it. I don't know what they're talking about.

Because it's like, the government clearly prints money. It does it all the time.

And it clearly borrows. Otherwise, you wouldn't be having this conversation.

So I don't think there's anything confusing there.

GLENN: Oh, my God. This is -- would you feel --

STU: Wow.

GLENN: If that was your captain, and you got on to a plane, and he said, hey. We're going to be traveling at 40,000 -- 4,000 -- I can't -- how does this work again? Would you get on that plane?

CAROL: Okay. So I'm going to be generous here first, Glenn.

And then I'm going to be not so generous. The first generous thing I will say is that we've all been in the media for a very long time, you longer than me. And we've all had days, that are somewhat like this. Where we know something really well. And we just can't get it.

So I will -- it could be today for me.

There have been a few times. When I made absolutely no sense, on something I know very well.

So it does happen. That can said. Now that I've been generous.

This is sort of the chief architect of the US economy at this point. Going through a discussion about MMT. I call it magic money tree. I've heard that somewhere along the line. I thought that was great.

And their main thesis. Oh, you got the checkbook. You can just write checks. The question he asked. Which anyone who lives in Zimbabwe would probably know the answer to. Why can't the government just print as much money as it wants.

We all know it's highly inflationary. And we've been living through that for the past few years. That's the very short answer. Of course, there's nuance to this. Of course, there's wonkiness that we can go in and explain the Treasury and the Fed. Just very simple.

So it begs the question to me. Does he not know the answer? Or does he very much know the answer, but he doesn't feel like he could admit it.

And hasn't done the prep. Which, again, these are politicians. Politician mouthpieces. They could just talk around us. Which they do all the time.

I think the answer is that they are just entirely decoupled from reality. So they don't care.

They don't care what it is, Glenn. Money is something very discreet. Money has three definitions. It's a unit of account. It's a median of exchange. It's the value.

At the end of the day, putting it together, what is it? It's a proxy for productivity.

It's an estimation of the labor that you have. Because it used to be. If you were a farmer. You had apples. Somebody who was a doctor at doctor services. You would have to figure out that exchange. Now this creates something that is seamless. So it stands for something.

GLENN: Stands -- time is money.

CAROL: It is. It is your output. So if you don't have an increase in economic activity. An increase in productivity. And you put more dollars in the system. What are you doing?

You're putting in more sort of proxies for productivity. They're chasing the same amount of goods and services. It means that those goods and services have been inflated and valued. Because each one of those proxies are worthless. If you go to Congress. And you ask them, to give you that definition of money. That I just gave you.

Anyone who knows anything about economics. I guarantee you 99 percent of the people couldn't tell you that. And the people on the left do not care. Because it doesn't serve their purpose.

They don't care that this is a proxy of what you have worked hard for.

They want to inflate that away for their own power purpose.

So it is very inconvenient for them to understand reality.

And that's why he can't explain this.

GLENN: I think he knows what it is. But can't explain.

Because he doesn't. He doesn't want to take a position on it.

Because I think they're all in bed with MMT. So he can't -- he doesn't want to say, I am in bed with MMT. Because it's insanity. But I think he also extent can know how to bridge that gap. There's a huge gap between reality and insanity.

CAROL: There is.

GLENN: And I think that's what it is. He just doesn't want to be seen crossing that bridge. Because there's no sane reason to do it.

CAROL: No. And the fact of the matter is, you had all these MMT people, selling this fantasy. And up until a few years ago, there were a lot of people who bought into the fantasy. Although, many of us said no. This is something that stands for reality.

You can't just make it up. Just because you have a checkbook. You can't write unlimited amounts of checks. It doesn't work that way. We have now lived through the worst inflationary period in 40-plus years. And these MMT people have not gotten enough shame. They should be walked through the street and we should go, shame, shame, shame.

Because it's their BS they've been selling into the government, into schools, that has allowed this to occur. And has allowed this decoupling from reality. Because they want to believe in unicorns that, you know, fart rainbows.

Who ACTUALLY Killed JFK? Glenn Reveals Assassination BOMBSHELLS | Glenn TV | Ep 423

Glenn resurrects the iconic Oval Office set used in Oliver Stone’s “JFK” film and dives into the massive JFK files release from the Trump administration. Conspiracy theories swirled for years that rogue CIA elements or Lyndon B. Johnson were behind the murder of Kennedy. Glenn’s team, aided by AI, sifted through the thousands of newly declassified documents to test the theories, and what they found was troubling: CIA wiretapping, media infiltration, ties to Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle and ammo. But what of LBJ’s alleged role? Legendary political strategist Roger Stone tells Glenn about his private conversations with President Nixon that led him to write “The Man Who Killed Kennedy.” Afterward, Glenn speaks to Shane Stevens, the grandson of Billie Sol Estes — a Texas businessman with alleged ties to LBJ. In January, he gave a digital copy of a secret family audiotape to "The Alex Jones Show." The conversations alleged that then-Vice President Johnson hired Mac Wallace to kill JFK. But was the tape real, or an elaborate AI hoax? Glenn’s team asks a JFK expert to verify its authenticity and for the first time ever, Shane plays the chilling confession live in-studio. Glenn argues that the JFK assassination isn’t just history — it’s a warning. From Benghazi to 9/11, COVID origins to Trump’s Russia probe, the same patterns of secrecy and deception persist. If the CIA or deep state got away with a coup in 1963, what’s stopping them now?

BLAZETV+ BONUS CONTENT

Get it all now, only at https://blazetv.com/glenn

Glenn and Roger Stone react to a buried Nixon tape in which he and CIA Director Richard Helms discuss “who shot John?"
Shane Stevens tells Glenn why he kept family confession tapes that allege LBJ’s plot to kill JFK hidden for so long.
Glenn recreates Lee Harvey Oswald’s JFK assassination shots with the exact rifle, scope, and rare CIA-requisitioned ammo at a Texas shooting range. Then, he tests the exact angle and speed with a moving target at an Oklahoma ranch. Was he able to hit the targets with the same timing between the three infamous shots? The results raise serious doubts about the “magic bullet theory” and the official lone-gunman narrative from the Warren Commission.

Tech Elite's Great Reset Agenda Exposed

The “groundwork” that Big Tech elites have set is being used to “enable” the policies of the Great Reset, warns Nicole Shanahan, who was once married to Google co-founder Sergey Brin. She recently sat down with BlazeTV’s Allie Beth Stuckey to share the inside secrets of the “Tech Mafia” that she once observed. Now, Allie joins Glenn Beck to discuss some of the most shocking moments from her podcast, including the near-death moment that brought Shanahan to Christianity.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to take in Allie Beth Stucky here, and bring her on the program.
There's a great story out about something she -- she has. She just released it. It was on TheBlaze.com.

And I had not seen the interview yet. I have seen pieces of the interview.

And it looks -- I mean, this is amazing.

Allie Beth is maybe one of the best interviews you've done can. Let me play a little clip of it first.

VOICE: So the tech-wide Mafia, I believe, were kind of being conscripted. And their money especially was being conscripted.

And to set the groundwork for The Great Reset. Specifically through -- specifically through a network of non-NGO advisers.

Relationship with Hollywood.

Relationship at Davos.

And their own companies.

GLENN: Hmm.

VOICE: So if you look at like who is on these boards, who hangs out with each other.

How these -- how the culture of -- of tech wealth works, like Silicon Valley tech worth. And that small group of people, responsible for a huge amount of money, and a huge amount of NGO activity across the United States. It's a really small group of people. And it's a really small group of people making these decisions.

And then. And then completely blind to everything else that's going on. And how their ground work is being used to then enable these other policies.

These great reset policies.

GLENN: It is amazing to go from five years ago, everybody saying, that's crazy!

That's not happening.

To the former wife of the -- the head of Google, coming out and saying, yeah. This was all orchestrated. We didn't even know what we were into. As wives.

As the Silicon Valley Mafia wives, as she calls them. Allie Beth, welcome to the program. How are you?

ALLIE: Thank you so much. Doing well.

GLENN: Really powerful interview. What did she say was her turning point? What woke he her up?

ALLIE: Wow. There were so many moments across her journey. Kind of started on the campaign trail with RFK.

She shared something that she had never shared before. That she was pregnant surprisingly on the campaign trail. And that she had a long-term miscarriage at 20 weeks. And it was life-threatening for her. She lost the sweet baby. And she almost lost her life. And she said that as she felt her life being pulled from her, she almost made this kind of exchange with God.

Like, okay. God. You have my life.

You know, I will do anything, basically.

I'm paraphrasing. People can watch the interview for her actual verbiage.

But she felt all of a sudden, this kind of peace of God.

That there's been a lot of moments until then, that had led her to that realization.

That he is real.

That the gospel of Jesus real.

And all of this. And something interesting she talks about on the campaign trail.

And she and I talks about this privately too. And it's okay for me to share. That she really saw the reality of evil. The reality of hell. When she was deep into politics. And that that kind of started to shift her perspective on, who were the bad guys here?

What's going on?

All this evil is being done under the guise of really good intention.

Especially in Silicon Valley.

And I don't want to be a part of that anymore.

GLENN: She said a couple of things. First of all, you kind of just said, the interview gets into much deeper of her losing the baby.

She lost over 4 liters of blood. You really only have about four liters of blood in you.

ALLIE: Exactly.

GLENN: And she was bleeding out.

So it was a really traumatic moment of her tying, as well as her child, dying, at the same time.

She said, at one point to you, you know, when I started to realize all of this stuff. It's a little difficult, when you're married to the guy who started Google.

ALLIE: Yeah. So that kind of goes back further in her journey during COVID.

She shared that her daughter was diagnosed with autism. And like any good mom. She's trying to figure out, wait. How did we get here? How can I help her? What's going on in her little brain, to help me understand how to best support her?

And as she was digging into the research, she found some things that have kind of been dubbed right-wing conspiracies, about environmental factors, even pharmaceutical factors, that could possibly cause some symptoms of autism. But she had a hard time researching, because the search engine that almost everyone uses censors that kind of information. And while she was married to the cofounded of Google, who was playing a part in censoring that information. Not only inhibiting her research for her daughter, but research for the effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

And she shared that caused understandably a lot of conflict in her life, and still does.

GLENN: I wonder what the conversations were like. You know what I mean? If you're looking at these things. Then all of a sudden, Google, your husband's company is censoring and saying, this is bad.

I mean, can you imagine that?

It would be really, very bizarre, to have that conversation at dinner that night.

Hey. I'm trying to do some research.

And you guys are shutting me down. And I have to tell you, I don't think this is crazy stuff.

I wonder what those conversations were like.

ALLIE: Yeah. I don't know.

It's crazy to think about.

GLENN: What was the biggest thing you took from her. I really, really like her.

Is this the first time you met her?

ALLIE: The first time I've met her in person. I'm just struck by how genuine, vulnerable she is. It was not easy to admit. Especially when you're someone who has been prominent in that space. Has donated a ton of money to entities like Planned Parenthood, George Gascon, other progressive causes, to admit that you were wrong, that you didn't see things as they were, and now you see things differently.

At one point, she said, I helped all these women get abortions, and I suddenly realized, I never helped a woman keep her baby. How dare I!

Not many people, especially in that space, have the humility to admit something like that. And I just praise God for that. Because that transparency will help a lot of people.

GLENN: How has her friend circle changed? I can't imagine she's got a lot of friends that were in that original circle.

ALLIE: You know, she still has friends. Maybe I don't know about in the tech-wide Mafia. But she still has friends who are very progressive.

I can see how she's a good person and a good friend, but she's having bold conversations with them. I know that for sure.

GLENN: Well, it's great.

You did a great job. I'm so happy for your success, Allie. I really am.

You deserve it.

Talk about your Shared Arrows. Get your Shared Arrows pitch here.

ALLIE: Yeah. Yeah. Shared Arrows. It is our women's Christian event. October 11th, Dallas, Texas. We are going to have Francesca Battistelli leading worship.

We're having Alice Childress. We're having Jinger Vuolo. Katie South. So many amazing speakers that are just rallying for women, to be courageous in our homes and whatever spaces God has placed us, to share the arrows of fellow believers that we face a common enemy.

So super excited about it. People can go to sharedarrows.com for more information.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Allie. Appreciate it, God bless.

ALLIE: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Allie Beth can be heard on Blaze TV.

MSM Proves Trump RIGHT About Canada & Illegal Immigration

A shocking “60 Minutes” report recently proved that Trump was RIGHT to crack down on illegal immigration across the Canadian border. The reporter recently interviewed a member of the Sinaloa cartel, who admitted to trafficking people and drugs across the Canadian border, including fentanyl from China. Glenn breaks down the story, as well as the incredible way the President of El Salvador is handling criminals that refused to self-deport.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So President Trump has imposed a 25 percent tariff on nearly all goods imported from Canada, and he's been saying, you have to work with us. You've got to secure the Northern border.

You've got to stop the drug cartels. The drugs, and the human smuggling that is happening on our northern border. And everybody is like, oh, no, Canada would never do that. That's not a problem. Okay. It's a problem. It's a border. It's a problem. And it's porous.

All of them are. We've got to do something about it. And ask our friends on our border, to help us. Well, they're not. Sixty minutes went up. I can't believe this was on 60 minutes over the weekend.

And they had a cartel smuggler on 60 Minutes.

How does 60 Minutes -- I mean, is that in the phone book. Where do you find a cartel smuggler? But they found one, and he went on record, and he said, I'll always find a way to get people illegally across the border.

Here's a piece of what he said.

VOICE: This video was reported in January. A group of men who just crossed the border. Ran to an SUV that drove them deeper into New York.

You can also see a woman getting out of a car, and go north to Canada. This man told us he coordinated the handoff and took the video.

GLENN: Can you tell us who you work for?

VOICE: For the Sinaloa Cartel.

VOICE: He goes by the name Javi, and he agreed to speak with us only with his camera off. He can't risk his identity being exposed.

VOICE: How does this work? They tell you where to go? They tell you how many people you have to bring across each week?

VOICE: Exactly. That's how it goes. They provide the people. They have more people who are behind all of this. Looking for customers. Finding them. And summoning them to certain locations.

VOICE: We found Javi through his online ads, which he said TikTok recently took down.

GLENN: Wow. Here he is talking about smuggling babies and fentanyl across the border.

VOICE: What's the youngest child you've ever crossed?

VOICE: Three months.

VOICE: Yes. Babies.

VOICE: What happens if one of the migrants you're working with doesn't pay?

VOICE: They cannot go. They're held hostage until they pay up.

VOICE: Until what?

VOICE: Until they pay.

VOICE: Do you work with only humans, or die move drugs also?

VOICE: Everything.

VOICE: How much fentanyl do you move across that border?

VOICE: Lately, it's been quiet. But for a while there, we were bringing in 30 kilos per month.

VOICE: Wow. The drugs come from?

VOICE: From China. I get more into the US, but also it goes from the US to Canada. And weapons.

GLENN: Hmm. Hmm.

Interesting. Isn't it?

So that's what we're dealing with.

And I don't know if you saw the video of the -- the people that, you know, were boarded up on airplanes.

And sent to, where was it?

Venezuela. Not Venezuela.

But El Salvador.

Did you see that?

Trump posted this amazing video.

You guys didn't see this?

Oh, we have to look it up, and play it!

It's this amazing video of the plane arriving in El Salvador. And them getting on the plane. And getting off the plane. And then, you know, ankle and bracelets on their wrists.

Walking hunched down, into this new prison. And I've got to tell you, that video itself, if I were thinking about coming here. I would immediately go, I'm not going there.

If that's what happens to you. I am not going there.

It sent such a strong, strong message.

This is how we treat people who are coming here, who are bad guys.

Now, this is the one that Trump -- or, that the administration is in court now, because an activist judge is like, you can't just do that. You know what, why?

Well, because you didn't vet them. No. I tell you what we did. We gave them exactly the same kind of vetting, that the last president gave when he let them all this.

Now, now, these people were on a list.

Okay? It doesn't mean that they are -- were all gang members. But you're here. You're here illegally. Buh-bye.

I know that sounds heartless. But -- I really believe that they all need to go home. They all need to go home. And a lot of these people were not just on a list. They were known to be gang members. And a lot of them had committed crimes here in America.

Buh-bye.

See you!

STU: Yeah. If you -- I love that. I love some of these people. Some of these people don't even have criminal records in America.

Well, first of all, if they're here illegally, to me, they have a criminal record. Right?

They act like this is not a crime!

Well, there is a law, okay?

And I understand there's some nuance within that law.

But like, there's a law, you're not supposed to come here. They know they're not supposed to come here. Many of them had criminal records at their home country, and not here.

Again, does that mean, that we don't -- that we're going to leave them here?

Because they didn't commit a crime that we know of yet, here?

I mean, the point is to prevent those, right?

It's possible! Right? That they made a mistake.

There's some claims that a couple of these people, should not have been going to prison.

And even if they should be deported to their home country.

If they didn't commit a major crime. They didn't necessarily need to go to the El Salvadorian lockups.

All that said. Find those problems. Solve those problems. I like what Elon Musk said about this, in the White House, a couple weeks ago.

When he was asked about it. And they said, like, hey. You -- and this has happened with DOGE. Hey, you posted. You saved $1.9 billion. And actually that had been canceled in the previous administration.

And he said, yeah, we're not going to get everything right. When we notice one of those things, we will fix it. And we will get it fixed right away.

Like, that is actually a normal human way to deal with an issue like that. It's so weird in Washington, to hear it.

Now, that's okay.

If you happen to be the person that is sent to this prison.

You won't like it very much.

GLENN: You shouldn't have been here the first place.

STU: That's the point. There's an initial thing that put you into this bucket. If you commit a crime, by crossing into this country, which we have warned you, not to participate in. If you do that, there are consequences to it!

And, you know, if Europe wrongly sent to this prison, they should absolutely correct those mistakes.

GLENN: Well, I have to tell you, I mean, every message he is sending is the exact opposite message that Biden was sending.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He's sending right now. What Biden was saying. Even if you're a terrorist.

Even if you're a murderer. We won't really check. So come on in, you're fine.

Now, you might be a good person.

You might be, you know, a dad of 16, whatever.

And you're just coming in.

But we don't know.

STU: Yeah. But no.

GLENN: We don't know. So don't come.

Leave. Leave, right now.

Leave on your own.

He is begging people to self-deport.

And when you see the video.

I have to play it for you.

It is amazing. When you see this video, it is -- I watched it, and I was like, oh, we have it.

Yeah. Go ahead and play this. Watch this!

It shows the airplane. Now, here they come down the stairs.

And look how they're all marched in a line.

And they're all being marched right into this maximum security prison compound.

And no, thank you.

STU: It doesn't look great.

GLENN: It does not look great. Look at that.

No, thank you.

STU: And this is -- they actually tweeted this.

The -- the president of El Salvador.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean, you are not -- if you --

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. If you are thinking about coming to the country. Or you're here illegally. Would you not be packing up everything right now, and go, yeah?

STU: Why mess with it, right? And it's the messaging.

GLENN: Yeah. Go home.

STU: As much as we've been very, very difficult.

Or tough on illegal immigrants.

It's true. There's always a part of me that does acknowledge the fact that we treat and have for decades. Treated illegal immigration kind of like it's a speeding ticket.

You know, you shouldn't do it. But we're not really going to do anything about it. If I were in a situation, like some horrible country.

Everything was overrun, we were all poor. Would I risk a speeding ticket?

Maybe.

GLENN: Yeah, me too. Right.

STU: This is going to surprise people. Occasionally, I drifted a couple of miles an hour. Over that speed limit here in the United States.

That's off the record for anyone listening.

GLENN: What?

STU: Yeah. Occasionally that happens.

And I do it for almost no gain.

I do it because I want to get home, 13 seconds faster.

If you were -- if your entire family was --

GLENN: You have all that recorded, right?

STU: Was devastated. And the United States government was constantly sending the signal.

Sure, it's kind of like breaking the rules. But don't worry about it. We have sanctuary cities here for you. The president was in a debate. He just won. Joe Biden. And he told you, what should we do with illegal immigrants?

We should welcome them. That's the real policy.

Like, I could. It almost takes away, a good chunk of the responsibility, of the illegal immigrant. That's how bad our policy has been, Glenn.

The policy is different now. The policy has been communicated, quite clearly to anyone who would consider coming here.

GLENN: Yeah. Or is here illegally.

STU: Yeah. Get out.

GLENN: Get out. Get out.

And he's doing all of this to not have to round people up.

He's starting with the worst of the worst.

And showing the examples of what is happening to them.

To say, to you, please, make the right decision.

Leave on your own!

We don't want to round you and your family up.

We don't want you to go through this.

You have an opportunity.

In fact, if you let us know, we're going to give you a special pass, that means, you could come back to the country, and apply for citizenship.

Not ahead of the line. But you can!

If we catch you here, and you haven't self-deported. And you're totally a law-abiding citizen.

You're never coming back.

You're on a list. And you're never allowed to come back. Okay?

He's sending these messages. And telling people, I think with compassion.

Hey. We might come for you, one day. You really should leave now.

We don't want to make this an ugly thing.

You came in the wrong way.

Sure, we encouraged it, whatever.

But not anymore.

And this has to be done. Or we turn into Europe!

Why is no one looking at what's happening to Europe. And concerned?

I was talking to a friend last night. Kind of the circle of the know.

And he said, I think the world is preparing for a three-front row.

And I was like, boy. That doesn't sound good.

He said, you know, look at the actions.

Look what's happening around the world right now.

He said, it could go horribly wrong with Europe.

And it appears, that there are players on all sides that want to have a war in Europe.

You can make your own decisions if that's true. And why.

But also, in -- in the Middle East.

There -- everybody is preparing for war. And preparing for possible war with Iran.

And then China is preparing for war. And if -- if there is a huge war in the Middle East, then we're berate into it. And a war in Europe. And we're berate into it. You don't think the third leg would stand and up take Taiwan?

They would take it in a heartbeat. Because we would not be able to fight a three-theater war. We're just not prepared for it.

And the one in Europe. If we're fighting in Europe, you know, we're approaching a place to where that could be 100-year war. Because that will all be about ideology.

And we're not talking to the Russians. We're talking about the Islamic State.

You know, there -- they're all -- all these Islamists have been brought in, and then they change. And then they have no-go zones. And then they set up Sharia courts. Do you think that will stop at some time, France? Germany?

Holland? Sweden? You really think all of a sudden, they will go, but that's enough. We won't go past this.

We will have our Sharia courts, but we respect you Lutherans over here.

Of course not. Of course not.

They have to take care of their own countries.

And the population that have been moving in, that is destroying their countries.

And making them an enemy, of the freedoms of mankind.

I don't want to deal with it. They need to.

But we're in the same boat!

We must protect the homeland. We have -- we'll never be able to save anyone. If we don't save ourselves, first. If we don't know who is here, we don't control the crime in our own cities.

We don't have cheap and effective energy. We don't have an educated, not miseducated, but an educated population. A hard-working population.

Somebody that -- a population that understands its own country. Its own history. And its own values.

You don't survive. You don't survive.

So we have a very clear job, that we have to do. And I think Donald Trump is doing a good job of it so far.

But the rest of it is up to us.

But we must act. I mean, I really think that God -- God does what we can't do. I couldn't have stopped that bullet.

I couldn't have done. Nobody could have stopped that bullet.

God stopped that bullet from hitting him.

I've never seen anything like that. If that wasn't a clear, almost Moses parting the Red Sea style miracle. I don't know if I have ever seen one then. That was a miracle. But God does the things that we can't do. We now have to do the things that we have to do. And one of those things is, if you want the government to be less powerful, we have to stop giving it power!

If you want the government to do less, we have to take on the responsibility to do more, in our own communities, neighborhoods, and family.

That's the way we fix this thing.

But the time to fix it, is right now.

We may only have another three years. And who knows what happens in three years?

Let's make sure we're doing all the hard work ourselves, right now.

DEBATE: Should AI Facial Recognition be Allowed in Court?

Is AI facial recognition software, like Clearview AI, reliable enough to be used as evidence in a court of law? Glenn, who is against Clearview, has a friendly debate with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who wants to expand Clearview’s use in court cases. So, how do we balance the good that Clearview can do and the bad that it is capable of doing in the wrong hands (for instance, a totalitarian government)? AG Yost gives his thoughts and also previews how he hopes the Supreme Court will rule on this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I am thrilled to have the Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on with us. He served as the auditor of Ohio, for a long time. Like eight years.

And then he became attorney general. I think he's -- I think he won it with more votes than anybody else in the history of Ohio has. And he is defending and fighting for something called Clearview. Now, I like Dave.

But I'm against Clearview. And maybe he knows something that I don't know. So I want to have a conversation with him about what is happening in Ohio, and what's being heard now in the courts.

Dave, welcome to the program.

DAVE: It's good to hear your voice.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. By the way, thanks for everything you've done. You're really making a difference.

DAVE: You're very kind, thank you.

GLENN: Talk to me about the case now of Clearview. Which is an AI facial recognition, and it is a great tool for law enforcement. But it frightens me a great deal. Talk to me about the case.

DAVE: Sure. So let's -- let's start with the backs of crimes.

Fellows walking down the street. Minding his own business. Mind you, this guy has no criminal background. He's just -- he's a good guy.

Pays his taxes. Goes to work. He's walking down the street on February 14th, Valentine's Day. Day of love. And the bad guy, I'm not going to use his name comes up behind him, robs him on the street, shoots him twice in the back, and runs off. Now, surveillance cameras see him, that are just on the street. See him going into a particular apartment. Well, fast forward a week. Police doing their investigation, trying to figure out what happened.

And as a -- he goes to a convenience store, and the surveillance camera there, over at the cash register, picks up his face.

And he goes back, same kind of route, to the same apartment.

And so they go, hmm.

Wonder who lives there.

And they run the probation website, or the parole website from the Department of Corrections.

Lo and behold, then they run that guy against the -- excuse me, they grab a facial freeze frame, off of the convenience store footage, and run it through Clearview AI, and it's a match.

So they say, a-ha! They go in, and get a search warrant from the judge. During the search, they come up with the gun.

The murder weapon.

And so they arrest the guy. They've got a pretty good case at that point.

That guy goes to court and complains. And says, hey, that facial recognition tough is not reliable. They say right on there, that you can't rely on it.

And don't use it.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: And the judge tosses the results of the search. Which means, this guy is going to walk, if we don't have the murder weapon for evidence.

GLENN: Right. And he tosses that because the clear view evidence is what got you the warrant. So anything is fruit of a poison tree. Correct?

DAVE: Well, that's what the argument is.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right. Right.

DAVE: But the law says there's a long-standing, decades long good faith exception. And you're only supposed to use the fruit of the poisonous tree. If there's no other -- if there's bad faith. And there's no other option to do it.

There was no bad faith here.

And, in fact, there's other useful evidence, probative evidence, including seeing the guy go into that apartment, that is useful. And supporting probable cause for the search warrant.

GLENN: It also reminds me a little bit of the glove doesn't quit, you must acquit.

The use of DNA evidence during OJ Simpson. Everybody said the same thing. That's unreliable. We don't even know what that is. Could be one out of every 100 have the same kind of -- they made all kinds of crazy things.

And so that was tossed out. Because people didn't understand how accurate, that was. Pragmatism so I don't -- I don't disagree with you at all. This is a great thing to get the bad guys.

However, Clearview. What they have done, is they have scraped billions of images, without anybody's consent off of the internet.

And I believe it's very, very accurate. And the argument would be, well, I'm not doing anything bad or wrong. So I don't have to worry about it.

But I don't -- you know, in a time where we're headed for AI the way we are. And what's happening in China.

This is exactly the kind of technology that is used for governments to track everybody.

How do you balance that the crazy world that we live in, to make sure it doesn't become a tool like China?

DAVE: Well, you know, Glenn, I worry about that too. And I think that the solution is the regulation of the use of the thing.

For example, we do not permit here in Ohio, the use of -- of facial recognition, without anything more to support an arrest warrant. It can only be used as a lead.

Then you have to go out and do the shoe leather. To prove that the guy you think it is, is the guy you're looking for.

GLENN: Which is what you did.

You used that. And you didn't arrest him because we had the AI. You arrested him because you had that, got you a warrant, you got in, you found the gun. Right?

DAVE: Well, it was a search warrant that got us --

GLENN: Right. Right. What I mean is, what you're saying you wanted to be used like, is exactly what you did. You didn't go get the guy because he was on Clearview.

DAVE: Exactly right. And here's the rubric. I know you're a fact guy. But you love -- you love, how do we think about this?

We have public spaces everywhere. So a cop can stand on the corner and observe all day long.

Ask sit there for an eight-hour shift. And just watch. And anything he sees is fair game. They're allowed to react right there. And that's not improper surveillance. Because it's a public place.

When does it stop becoming a public place? Or proper?

When it becomes a private place. If it's your home. If it's in some circumstances, your business.

You have to have probable cause, get a somewhere to sign off on that. I think when we're talking about these technological things, the question is: What is the government allowed to do with it? And what -- and did it occur in public or in private?

When we're talking about Facebook, you know, I'm sorry. It's electronic. But that's kind of a public place.

That's more like the cop standing on the street corner. On the other hand, the cop standing outside.

We just had a Supreme Court case about this a couple years ago. A cop standing on the street, but using sensitive ultraviolet thermal imaging to look for marijuana grows. They're looking at what's going on inside your private residence. That means, that's a Fourth Amendment violation.

So I think that this principle of public versus private fears. Goes a long way, to helping us think through this.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

So, Dave, I want you to know. I mean, I hope this hasn't felt like a hostile interview.

I want you to know. I'm a fan of yours. But I'm very, very concerned of this slippery. Almost straightdown slope to the cage that AI could build for people.

And we could have all of the best intentions. But it falls into the wrong hands.

You know, we lose several elections in a row.

And, you know, it could be -- it will be a prison. It will be a panopticon. Like it is, in China.

And so that's why I'm concerned about it.

So this is in front of the Supreme Court. Closing arguments haven't happened yet.

DAVE: Nope.

GLENN: How do you think this is -- the court will look at this. And what do you think will happen?

DAVE: Well, it's a case of first impression, right?

I mean, we haven't had a lot of cases, challenging the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, protecting our privacy, in our homes. And papers.

And this new technology. So we're arguing for a narrow reading of it.

But that it should be -- it should be an available tool.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: To your point earlier, I couldn't agree with you more. It scares me, what government can do about this.

If you think about, back to the Biden administration. And social media ask what they were doing.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DAVE: Multiple that. Make that geometrically larger. That's the potential. We've got to be vigilant.

GLENN: What is the difference between this, and, for instance, in Texas, you can't clock me speeding with a camera.

A cop has to be there, to stop me. And even they can take a picture of me, driving the car. Et cetera, et cetera.

They cannot ticket me for speeding. It has to be a physical police officer.

What is the difference between this, do you think?

DAVE: Well, and that's a great -- that's the same law we have in Ohio. And that's a great example of how the government can restrain technology. To prevent it from going too far.

That's not a constitutional issue. That's a statute that the general assembly passed. And said, we're not going to let you do this. Yes. You've got the technology. We're not going to let you do this. That's just too far.

GLENN: Okay. Dave, I mean, I appreciate that at least you and others are thinking deeply about this because we're on the verge of a whole Brave New World.

And I honestly don't know what the right answer is. I mean, the law -- you know, law-abiding citizen in me, is like the guy clearly -- you've got the gun in his house. He clearly did it.

But the person that is concerned about this new technology, and things like China.

I just don't know how to balance it yet. But I appreciate the conversation. Thank you so much.

DAVE: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. That's Dave Yost. He's the Ohio Attorney General, and that is happening in Ohio right now.