RADIOMarch 15, 2024

How the Government’s “ORWELLIAN” Social Media Censorship Campaign Could Soon be DEFEATED

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear the case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which could decide the fate of the federal government’s massive campaign to force social media companies into censoring Americans. “It’s the most important free speech case in the country,” Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) tells Glenn. Sen. Schmitt, who filed the case while he was Attorney General of Missouri, describes the “Orwellian” things this lawsuit has uncovered: “The full power of the federal government was being used to silence Americans.” But will this be enough to stop our power-out-of-control government?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Okay. Give me -- give me some good news, will you?

ERIC: Well, I will. So Monday, Missouri versus Biden is being argued at the Supreme Court.

And it is this -- we've talked about before. It's the most important free speech case in the history of the country.

Certainly in a generation. Because it deals with the federal government, and its vast censorship enterprise, coercing, colluding, cajoling these social media giants to censor speech. And what the judge found in the lower court, when I filed it, when I was attorney general in Missouri.

What the judge found at the lower court, was that this was almost exclusively conservatives being censored. It reeks of viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.

And it was Orwellian. What was uncovered, Glenn. Was tens of thousands of emails and text messages from hiring government officials, to social media giants, saying, take it down.

Or we will launch an investigation. Or we will sue you under anti-trust -- I mean, really, really, the full power of the federal government was to suppress defense, to silence Americans.

So that's been shown in the case. So that now has been appealed by the government.

They want to continue to censor people, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that on Monday.

And how do you think it will go?

KEN: I'm hopeful. I'm hopeful.

I just think, the case, a lot of it will come down to, what is the government, actually, doing. And were they, in fact, coercing?

Right? Were they using the power of the federal government to get these social media giants, to do the things that they can't legally do themselves?

What makes this case unique is, typically, social media companies are sued by people who are then de-platformed, or their posts have been taken down.

And those go to the Northern District of California, and they're never seen again.

But what's unique in our case, is that we've sued the federal government, themselves.

In the -- and the actors like Jen Psaki and Anthony Psaki.

Anthony Fauci's deposition, to Elvis Chan's deposition, who was, of course, the FBI agent in charge.

Who was pre-bunking the Hunter Biden story, calling a Russian disinformation a hack and leak operation.

Even though, they had the laptop already. They are pre-bunking this you know, getting ready for 2020.

The COVID -- the -- the efficacy of mass.

You know, they were suppressing that speech.

Vaccine issues. Origins of COVID. Where they were shutting anybody down, that were talking about this, coming from the lab in Wuhan. So all that is uncovered in this law.

And if it wasn't for this lawsuit, Glenn, and then later, Elon Musk buying Twitter with the Twitter files.

And then later, some of the Congressional hearings, this stuff would still be in the dark.
You know, it would still be a conspiracy theory. But it was happening. You know, we referred to it in the lawsuit, is a vast censorship enterprise.

The number of agencies and people involved here, is breathtaking.

And the -- you know, sometimes willing behavior of social media companies to comply and de-platform and censor people. But in some instances, they didn't want to, actually, do it. And they changed their rules.

GLENN: Right. That's what I wanted to ask you about.

How much of this do you think this is willing? And how much of it was fear of the government?

ERIC: Both. So, yeah.

I mean, these social media platforms, typically were very aligned with the left.

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: I think in many instances, Facebook, for example, after 2016, and Donald Trump won, they made it clear, publicly. They were never going to let that happen again.

Right, they were never going to let that happen again.

So I think some of this was overtly political on their part. And they were willing participants. But there are -- there are documents, to uncover. Where they were pushing back.

It was not -- it didn't violate their length of service.

As one judge said in the previous argument. That's a nice social media company you have there, right?

It would be a shame if something happens to us, almost like a mothball, coming from the government.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that is.

KEN: So this is, again, the -- the -- all the power that the federal government has, exerting that on these social media companies. To do what they can't legally do themselves.

Which is to censor.

So this case, it's hard -- for me, as somebody who believes deeply in the right to free speech. And what that means for a country. And freedom.

This is, in my view, one of the most important cases. In general, the courts heard in a very, very long time. But certainly, as it relates to the First Amendment. That's the most important.

Because we're dealing with the virtual town square now, Glenn.

GLENN: How is this going to affect the -- the new systems that they're putting in, for mis and disinformation? And the governments, you know, work with Five Eyes and with social media and the rest of the media.

Where they are just training them. And guiding them through mis and disinformation.

Will this case have anything to do with that? Because that's upon us, right now.

ERIC: Absolutely.

And so that is the intention of this, to bust that up. Because there are agencies like CISA that most people have never heard of.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ERIC: But, yeah, was very involved, Glenn.

GLENN: Explain what -- explain to the audience, what CISA is.

ERIC: It's basically the agency that was created, not that long ago. The deal was sort of cyber security. Okay?

GLENN: Right.

ERIC: And what it found itself doing. In -- you know, during COVID. In particular.

Was under the guise of disinformation and misinformation, as you clearly articulate, that's -- look, that is -- that's a ploy, by one of the tyrants to control speech.

GLENN: Yes.

ERIC: The truth of the matter is, you get to say your opinion. Even if someone else thinks it's wrong.

The government doesn't get to shut that down. The government doesn't get to tell you, what you can say and what you can hear.

It's up to the individual, how they want to move forward.

And as they analyze facts, and what their decisions are. Right?

It was sort of like with the mandates. With mask mandates.

People can make their own decisions. They can judge if this is a good thing or not for their families. Same with the vaccine.

So all of this was about command and control, for these sprawling agencies. The other thing that was exposed in this too, Glenn. Is there were universities. University of Washington, Stanford were involved with helping, you know, sort of determine what the disinformation. And misinformation was.

GLENN: Right.

KEN: So, again, they're outsourcing this to their sort of web of allies. To censor Americans.

And this case would prevent that. This case, if the court rules the right way, and I hope that they do. It would essentially, it would be an injunction on all these agencies from engaging in that kind of activity.

It would be a huge win. Now, no matter what happens, the case, of course, stands for exposing all of this.

But the remedy that hopefully will play out. Is preventing this.

But as we talked about before, I've got legislation, in the Senate. That would empower individuals, to sue individual government actors. If they -- if they're right to be --

GLENN: I would --

ERIC: It would -- you can then sue. Yeah, it would. Because in stead of the AG and the state suing, you would have an army of citizens, being able to stand up for their First Amendment rights.

GLENN: You know, the Treasury, I think in cooperation -- I would have to look this up.
I think it was the World Bank. I don't know. Some world organization, got together and ran a -- kind of a war game with the central banks around the world.

And one of the things that came out of that was, we have got to shut down voices.

And this -- this is an exact quote. We have to shut down voices, that disagree, in the case of an emergency. A financial emergency.

That disagree with the actions of the central banks. Even if they are correct, because they could further the collapse of the system.

And I've been saying on the air, for a while now. I know I'm not going to agree with the -- with the global central banks on whatever it is they're planning to do.

The people who created the problem, I don't want designing a new system or anything else. And that snuffs out freedom of speech, quickly. Quickly.

ERIC: It does. It does. And what I think you're seeing play out in realtime, is the -- the broad diffusion of information, which is good.

That's good. Is the democratization of how people get information. You're sort of on the front lines of all this, a long time ago.

What they really fear is that individuals will then take different inputs and make up their own minds.

Free networks, that tell you everything they want you to hear.

And, again, I just think that we ought to be unafraid, I think, as conservatives, to talk about.

This is about -- this is before B freedom. This is about liberty. This is about making up your own mind. And they know how powerful that idea is.

They absolutely -- so what's the game plan?

You saw it play out in COVID. Which is create a crisis. Have a -- in other words, real or manufactured, right?

GLENN: Yep.

KEN: And then you consolidate power. You fearmonger. You other, the othering of those who are dissenting.

I mean, think about it.

Go back in time just a little bit. They were -- in Australia, which we thought was kind of like us, but with cute apples. They had camps.

You know, they have camps!

People were being arrested in parks, for not wearing masks. I mean, we can't memory hole all this stuff.

That is a glimpse of the kind of world that some of these folks want to live in, if you disagree with the regime. And we have to fight that with everything we have, to make sure that doesn't happen.

And also, it depends on us, defending somebody else's rights to say something that we disagree with.

That's their hallmark of it.

They want to bulldoze all of that, Glenn. To have a regime there, and anybody that stands in the way is othered, marginalized, called all sorts of names, lose their jobs, de-platformed.

I mean, that is -- so this whole lecture we get from Joe Biden, on threats to democracy.

We have seen the threats. We have seen the threats. And it is Joe Biden's administration which is censorship enterprise, and trying to throw political opponents in jail.

So I think people are waking up to this. And I think we just have to stand up to this.

GLENN: Good. Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.

We'll be watching Monday. Maybe you'll come back Monday or Tuesday. And tell us highway it went.

And -- and dissect the arguments, back and forth, between the two.

Thank you, Eric. Appreciate it.

Senator Eric Schmitt, from Missouri.

Lee Strobel: We got this WRONG about the Christmas story

Renowned Christian author Lee Strobel joins Glenn Beck this Christmas season to discuss the new updated version of his book, "The Case for Christmas." Plus, he dives into the REAL history and facts about the nativity story, including some parts we may have gotten wrong...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

LEE: I'm doing great, Glenn. Great to be with you again.

GLENN: Yeah. I love talking to you. I'm really excited to hear the case for Christmas. Now, you were an atheist?

LEE: Yes.

GLENN: And we've talked about this before. Your eyes opened up. And how did you get to the place to where you're like, okay. Let me see if I can make the case for the baby Jesus in the manger?

LEE: Well, yeah, being an atheist. My wife became a Christian. So I decided to try to rescue her from this cult that she had gotten involved in. So that launched me on to an investigation into the historical reliability of Christianity.

I did it that for two years, until I became convinced that in light of the evidence, it would take more faith to become a Christian. So I became a Christian, ended up believing journalism and so forth.
GLENN: Amazing.

LEE: And written many books about it. But I wanted to do a book on Christmas. Because in the Christmas season, there seems to be a more spiritual openness, than any other time of the year.

GLENN: Yeah.

LEE: Even when I was an atheist, I felt more spiritually sensitive during the time of Christmas. I don't know why. I guess because it permeates the culture.

GLENN: Yeah. I think it's because we see hope. We see goodness in one another.

LEE: Yeah.

GLENN: It's different.

LEE: Yes. Exactly. But how do we know if it's based on reality?

How do we know? We can all enjoy the parties and the gift-giving and so forth. But how do we know it's really based on historical reality?

That's what really intrigues me as someone who is a history buff.

GLENN: So take me through that. How do we know?

LEE: Yeah. We have two really early, independent, but consistent reports about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.

One comes from the Gospel of Luke. Now, Luke, was -- I love this guy. He was an investigative reporter.

There was a companion of St. Paul, and Luke said -- he didn't say, well, I'm going to tell you about something that happened in the distant past once upon a time. No, he said, I carefully investigated everything so I could write an orderly account about the certainty that took place. He's claiming, I'm writing about what actually took place.

I believe he writes from Mary's perspective. I think he may have interviewed Mary. If he didn't, I think he interviews Hosana and Joanna, who were friends with Mary, who he mentions in his gospel. And then we have Matthew. Matthew was also -- he was a disciple. Matthew was -- was right there in the first century setting. He later became a leader in the church of Jerusalem. And one of the other leaders was a guy named James, who was the half brother of Jesus.

So James, I think communicated to Matthew, kind of the male perspective. For the birth of his brother Jesus.

GLENN: Hmm.

LEE: By the way, I was talking to a woman the other take. And she has a young child. I was talking to her about this.

And she said, yeah. If you ask my husband about the birth of my child and you ask me, you will get two different perspectives.
(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

LEE: It's the same birth. We're talking about the real situation.

So we've got this two really early reports. That are independent, that are consistent with each other. And then we have a very interesting report in the gospel of Mark. Now, Mark is writing based on the recollections of Peter, who is one of the inner circle with Jesus.

And he starts his gospel later in life. So he doesn't have a birth narrative. But interestingly, in Mark 6:3. He refers to Jesus as Mary's son. Now, in first century Jewish culture, you would never do that. You were always your father's son. It would have been Joseph's son.

Even if Joseph were already deceased, he would always refer to him as Joseph. And, no. He referred to him as Mary's, and I think there's a wink, that says, yeah, yeah, I know.

Joseph wasn't his biological father. And then we have John, who writes the last gospel.

He doesn't repeat a lot of the historical stuff in the first three gospels. He writes from a grand theological perspective about the incarnation. And with him was the word, and the word was with God. And the word was God.

And then the word came into our world and dwelled among us. So it was very theological. But interestingly, John had a disciple, who he mentored.

And that guy wrote the letter. And in that letter, he says, Jesus was, quote, really and truly born of a virgin. Where did he get that idea?

I think it was from John, who wrote the gospel of John.

GLENN: So is it concerning at all. Because I've heard this argument before. You know, when -- when the gospels all same say the same thing, it's pretty clear. But they can't even decide. They can't even agree on the last words of Christ when he's on the cross.

And is it -- is it -- does it matter. Should we be concerned that only two of the four gospels talk about the birth?

LEE: No. I don't think so. Because first of all, those are two solid sources historically and very early. Mark gives us a reference to the fact that Joseph was not the biological father. And he also portrays Jesus as being the Son of God. And John, of course, was a theological take on the reincarnation. He's basically saying the same thing. So, no. I don't think are a problem. And the differences in the gospels I don't think are a problem either. Because as someone trained in law, if you're in a trial, and the witnesses get up. And they all say the exact same thing, you object. And say, Your Honor, collusion.

They got together, they worked out the story, and you can't trust it.

But when you have different perspectives, people emphasize different things. There's, for instance, a technique that was used in ancient literature, that was used today.

That was called literary spotlight. What that means, somebody will focus on what one person is saying or doing. And other purpose will focus on other people who are involved in the same scene. But it's not contradictory. They're just focusing on different aspects of the same scene. So when you look at what the -- yeah.

GLENN: No. I'm sorry to interrupt. Finish. And then I have a question.

LEE: Sure. When you look at the literary techniques that were used in the first century by (inaudible) and so forth. These historians. And you use those literary techniques in writing the New Testament. These discrepancies between the gospels virtually disappear.

GLENN: So let me take you here: And I believe in the story. So, but I want to push back as hard as I can on this.

LEE: Sure.

GLENN: You know, the virgin birth is so hard for people to accept. And especially once you look at Greek mythology. This is the same story. They're just plagiarizing. This is half man, half God.

LEE: Right. Right.

GLENN: So how do you respond to that?

LEE: Yeah. I actually deal with this in my book. This is totally bogus. This was invented by German theologians in the 1800s. In the early 1900s, the Christians responded to it.

They refuted it. But now, it's come up again. I think as the internet has dredged up these old arguments. For instance, you have the most famous example is Dan Brown in his book and movie the Da Vinci Code. Where he says, oh, well, you know, crusades just copied all this stuff. He said, there was an ancient myth called Mithras. And Mithras was born of a virgin on December of the 25th.

He had 12 disciples. He tied for world peace. He was resurrected from the dead.

So now Jesus is just kind of plagiarizing. The story of Jesus was invented by people and plagiarized from Mithras. Well, I investigate that. And what do you find?

You find in the actual myth of Mithras.
Number one. He was not born of a virgin. The myth was he emerged fully grown, naked, wearing a hat out of a rock.
(laughter)

GLENN: But, I mean, it's the same thing!

LEE: Yeah, I guess you could say the rock is a virgin. But, I mean, secondly, born on December the 25th. So what. We don't know the date Jesus was born. It's not in the Bible, where the ancient records are recorded. Ancient Christians did not care about birthdays. Third, he didn't die for world peace.

He was known for killing a bull. Fourth, he didn't have 12 disciples. According to one version, he had one disciple. According to another version he had two disciples. He wasn't resurrected from the dead. There's nothing in the myth -- it's about him dying. And so nothing about a resurrection. So all of these parallels, supposed parallels disappear when you investigate what actually took place. You know, people say, well, Alexander the great. You know, there was a myth that he was conceived by Zeus.

Well, even Alexander the Great's own mother, Olympias said, it's not true. It's crazy. It's a story. It's not true.

So every one of these supposed myths that predated Christianity, none of them are parallels to the story of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then I want to take ask you about one word, one Greek word that shed new light on the traditional Christmas story.

More with Lee Strobel here in just a second.

So tell me about the one, the one Greek world that opens things up.

LEE: It really does say he went about the common perception of Christmas. The common idea of Christmas that people have is it's Mary and Joseph because of a census had to go to Bethlehem to register.

And they get there. And she's about to give birth. And they go to a lodge or an inn, and they meet an old entity who says, sorry, no room, dear. And throws the door in her face. So they go off to a stable. And she gives birth among the animals and puts the baby in a manger.

Well, what that comes from. Just a second in the gospel of Luke, where he says, the baby was placed in a manger because there was no room for Mary and Joseph in the katalima.

That's the Greek word. Katalima. So the question is, what does that word mean?

Does it mean an inn? There's no room at the inn? I don't think so. And most scholars don't think so. That's how it was translated in the King James in 1611. But it's probably not the best translation.

So let me explain something. How a house looked in the first century Bethlehem. There was one large room, broken down into two parts. The larger part was the living area.

That that's where people would live, eat, sleep, and then there was a couple of steps bound to a smaller area where the animals were brought at night.

And they were like pets. They may have a couple goats, a couple sheep, and there was a manger there, but because there was a couple of stairs up.
They would sometimes come you up in the living room area. You know, how cute are they?

They're like little lambs, like pets. And so there was a manger also, in the living area. While some of the more wealthy people had a katalima, a guest room. It had a separate entrance. And it made their house bigger.

What apparently happened, is that Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. And they went to a home of a relative and knocked on the door. They said, hey. We're here for the census. And they said, oh, that's great. But you know what, we have a lot of people here for the census.

There's no room for you in the guest room, the katalima. But you can give birth in the living room. And, yes, there is a manger there, and, yes, some of the animals may have come up the stairs because of the commotion of what was going on. And, yes. There was -- the baby was probably put there in a manger.

Now, in the year 1395, John Wycliffe, who did a translation into English, in the Greek Bible.

GLENN: Right.

LEE: Translated it as a guest room.

The New International version, which is probably the most popular translation in America today, does not use the word "inn." It uses "guest room."

Now, in writing this account, he knew what word to use. Katalima. He uses it one other time. And in that other instance, it was also a room in a house. There's another word he uses, andohayan (phonetic), which is a Greek word that means an inn. And he does use that word when he talks about the parable of the good Samaritan. So he knew, if he wanted to use the word inn, he would have used andohayan, but he didn't. He used katalima.

And the conviction of most scholars, it gives me a guest room. There probably was no inn.

GLENN: Wow.

LEE: Yeah. It's kind of mind-blowing after everything we've heard. And, yeah.

LEE: The other thing is, in first century Jewish culture, the value of hospitality was so high, that -- it would have been impossible for an innkeeper to turn away a pregnant Jewish woman. I mean, he would have been ostracized. He would have been run out of town on a rail. It would have destroyed his business. You could not do that because the value of hospitality was so high.

And we don't even know there were many inns in Bethlehem. It was a small town. Five hundred people. It wasn't on a main crossroads. There may or may not have been an inn there in the first place.

So I think the majority of scholars, I think would agree, that the word really means guest room, and not an inn.

GLENN: That changes everything!

That changes your whole vision of that. You know what I mean?

That's -- that's mind-blowing. That's just totally mind-blowing.

LEE: It is! And not only that, the image we have is that Mary is on the verge of giving birth, as she's arriving. And makes it urgent.

That's not in the text either! It just says that while they were in Bethlehem, she gave birth. It doesn't say they were in Bethlehem five minutes or five days or five months. Now, where the idea, the urgency comes from is the book of fiction that was written in 200 A.D.. A lot afterwards. No real historical connection. In that fictional account, Mary Joseph are approaching Bethlehem, to get 3 miles away from Bethlehem.

And she had to give birth. And so they went into a cave. And she gave birth to some animals in a cave. That's the idea of where a cave come up. Because people to envision her giving birth in a cave. That's really fiction. That doesn't have historical reality written -- you know, way, way later.

GLENN: I have so many questions, Lee. Can I have you back next week?
LEE: Sure!

GLENN: I have so many questions on this. I would love to have you back next week on this.

Because I want to talk to you about the Old Testament. Because people say, well, they just wrote that in later. Because they knew, he was the fulfillment. So they looked, and they just jammed this story together.

But you have the answers to -- to all of that. I would love to have you back next week.

LEE: Absolutely. Just let me know.

GLENN: You've got it. Lee, thank you so much. God bless you. Merry Christmas, we'll talk to you next week. You bet. It's a fascinating book. You've got to read it. The Case for Christmas. It -- while, I mean, you just did. It will turn everything upside down. And I love those kinds of things that make you think and look at things in a new and different way.

Lee Strobel, I think he's one of the best.

He's an author for the case for Christ.

But his new book is the case for Christmas.

How you can know for sure, what was laying in that manger. And where was that manger?

Was it in the kitchen, apparently?

I don't know.

THIS proves who REALLY rules the world

The Department of Energy is preparing to finance up to 10 nuclear power plants to help the development of AI. Glenn Beck is both thrilled and furious. Glenn explains why this energy issue reveals who really rules the world.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Chris Wright, our energy secretary, told an exclusive interview with the Free Beacon. That the Department of Energy, under Donald Trump is preparing to finance up to ten nuclear power plants, to give us a renaissance of nuclear energy. I have to tell you, I am both thrilled about this, and a little pissed. And maybe it's just me.

But we've been talking about nuclear energy since I was a little kid. We've known that nuclear energy was the answer since the 1950s. But we've not wanted to do it. And there's been all kinds of protests. And you all kinds of lefties that are out. Saying, oh, you can't do that. You'll kill everybody on the planet. In the meantime, we've not built nuclear energy plants. Okay? Haven't built them. We have reinvented them.

We have -- we have reinvented them. We made them small. There's no China Syndrome. Nothing else.

But they've been there for a while now. Still can't do it. Oh, the planet is going to catch on fire soon! It's going to be so hot. We're all going to die. Nuclear energy, which has zero emissions. No, can't do that. Because maybe. Possibly, what if? Even though, it's the safest energy man has ever produced. Let me say that again.
It is the safest energy man has ever produced. But you can't have it. I can't have it. I need energy for my house. I need energy for my office. No. You don't get it.

Sorry, try a windmill. But that doesn't work. Well, it worked when it was windy.

Okay. But now that AI -- now that these giant corporations need the energy. And there's no way for them to make the energy fast enough, and big enough, all of a sudden, green lights are everywhere.

Notice, nobody is talking about, we can't have all these nuclear power plants. We can't do that. Ten nuclear power plants.

Are now being green lighted and financed by our Treasury Department. Okay? Which is a good thing. If we don't have energy, we lose all of it. All of it. These -- these server farms have to have energy. And I warn you, gang, if we don't build them, what's going to happen?

Do you really think that you're going to get the power, that ace hardware is going to get the power over a Home Depot?

Do you think your house is going to get the power over a Google server?

Nope. They will start rationing for everyone else, to put all of it into the server farms. I guarantee you, that's what's going to happen.

So this is really, really good for the American people.

But, again, like I said, I'm kind of pissed. Because my whole right after, I've believed in nuclear energy.

And everybody has been against it. How many Chernobyl movies do we need to make?

How many lies about Chernobyl do we have to hear?

How many lies do we have to hear about what happened in Japan?

Or, my favorite: Three Mile Island.
No one died! No one died! Stu, wasn't that just steam that was let out, with such low emissions that it didn't affect anything, in Three Mile Island.

People quoted that forever.

STU: Yeah. The maximum radiation released was the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

Maximum exposure.

GLENN: And that stopped everything. That stopped everything!

That happened, and that movie, by Jane Fonda, the China syndrome. Which, by the way, was really good. The China syndrome came out, at the same time.

And everyone said no, to nuclear energy. And can you imagine, if we had nuclear energy, right now. How far ahead we would be?

Can you imagine? I can guarantee you, we would be using hydrogen cars right now. Because hydrogen can be made in the off hours. You have these nuclear power plants. When everybody goes to bed. They just keep the plant running. Instead of turning it down, they keep it running at a high level. And you can make hydrogen for cars, all night long.

Oh, my gosh. It's so frustrating.

It just -- it just goes to show you, who actually rules the world.

Is it you?

Or the giant corporations?

It's the giant corporations.

And it's really -- I hate -- I hate coming to that realization.

You know, I would like living in my little utopian world where everything was happy.

Everybody was like, oh, you know what, you know what, we're really good. No. We're the Constitution, republic, people listen to us.

Our politicians react to us.

GLENN: No. They really don't. They really don't.

But they can. They can. We just have to say, enough is enough. Enough is enough.

And believe me, anything that they can do to be able to shut you down and control you, and what is the best way to control people?
What's the best way to control people?

What's the absolute positively, I can control everything you do?

If I can control three or four things.

Your food. Your medicine.

Your energy. Hmm. And your money.

Because if I have your money, I can control where you buy food. What you buy. I can -- I can control where you travel to, how you travel. Oh, sorry. You can't go on an airplane, too dirty for you.

Leonardo DiCaprio needs that. Because he will give a speech about global warming. So we'll give him your credit, so you don't have it.

They control your money. If they control your food. If they control your medicine, are you -- are you noticing a trend?

I mean, everything that is happening here. They're killing our farmers.

There's your food.

They're just slaughtering our farmers. You know, metaphorically. Our farmers are going out of business. Our ranchers.

There's no reason.

We used to be the breadbasket of the entire world.

Why aren't we still?

Well, because we had to play in the global atmosphere. I don't want to play in the global atmosphere anymore.

I don't believe in all that crap.

I'll sell it to the globe. But why are we taking it in the shorts? Our people are hurting. We're buying our food, which we used to make here. We're buying it for overseas. And our farmers are going out of business. All this farmland, and who is gobbling it up?

Who is gobbling it up?

People like Bill Gates!

These giant industrial farms, okay.

And if they can control your electricity, already, I think it's in Mexico.

I know it's South America. I think it's in Mexico. They're already having problems. Some of these server farms. They're already having rolling brownouts in some towns in Mexico, just to keep the servers going, and if your servers run everything, can you imagine, you're on the east coast. Your servers start to go down. Do you think that because our entire economy -- our -- our whole system of money, banking, the stock market. Everything. It's all on server farms. No. It has to have. That's priority. That's priority.

It will be priority for that. Maybe hospitals, unless they just want to continue to reduce the surplus population to quote Scrooge.

But it will all go to the server farms. Before it goes to your farm and your house. Guarantee it. So good news, I guess, on that one.

The New York Times. This makes me so nervous. Wait, Stu. Why did you make that face?

GLENN: I mean, I get what you're saying, in theory, this electricity might go to sources that, you know, benefit from, but problem is nuclear energy.

It's basically unlimited.

You know, it is --

GLENN: These are smaller. These are smaller plants. These are -- these are designed for the server farms, not for the public.

STU: I -- I -- I agree with that. But I -- I don't know. I kind of take it as closer to proof of concept than anything else.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: If they dump money into these things, and they're successful, and there aren't massive problems, which all of these things I think would be the expectation, I think that there's a chance -- we might -- we might have a world that is not that far away. We have relatively cheap energy in perpetuity.

I mean, that's a massive promise and worth a little bit of risk of some of this stuff going to the wrong sources.

GLENN: I think you're absolutely right. But what time is it?

Oh, it's 2025. Next year is an election. Let's see how that works out. You know what I mean?
I talked to the president about this. I've said, you've got to get those power plants deep in construction.

You've got to find a way to make sure those things are bulletproof. Or it won't happen!

You lose the election in 2028, they're not going to -- they're not opening.

They're not opening.

It won't happen.

Because you've got the left.

And maybe it will happen. But it will never, never then be transferred to you.

You won't get one.

You will have a windmill.

And just to make it super efficient, it might be like one of those windmills from Holland with the wood pegs in it.

I don't think -- you may not get a real modern windmill. You'll get one that also doesn't work, but is really, really super old.

One of the things that bothers me, Stu. And I want to take a quick break. And come back to this. This is the New York Times. Why the AI boom is unlike the dot-com boom. Wall Street Journal. Wall Street is shaking off fears of an AI bubble.

Okay. And just to make it even a little scarier. Yes, Jim Cramer just came out. And said, keep your money with the stuff. Whatever he says seems to go the opposite.

So I don't -- I don't know. But how are we in an AI boom or a bubble? Well, while we talk about that, maybe it keeps us from talking about the real thing that is coming with AI. And that is the employment bubble. Because I think the employment bubble is going to pop soon. And that's when you're going -- that's when people are going to come with pitchforks and torches. To the government. And to these giant companies that are -- that are pushing AI.

This is something that I've been talking about since probably 2005. It's going to happen. It's going to happen.

And I'm really super excited that I started working on an AI project.

But we're not firing anybody. We're still hiring people. We're just tripling our output to do more.

But when joblessness really starts to hit, that's a problem. That's a problem.

A listener CALLED ME OUT. I'm GLAD she did

A listener recently called Glenn Beck out for something related to his new project, George AI. And he THANKED her for it...\

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Rebecca, in Texas, hi, Rebecca. How are you? Hello. How are you?

GLENN: Good. That's all right.
Good. I was calling because I -- I was showing him George AI the other day. And when you were speaking -- it looks great, by the way, well done.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a long way from being right, but thank you.

CALLER: Well, it was great. You had mentioned, and you referred to it as a "he."

GLENN: I know.

CALLER: And I was just curious how -- how it kind of evolved, to where you're calling it a "he." Is it because you're intimate with the algorithm? Almost in a sense you trust yourself so much that --

GLENN: No. No.

CALLER: Okay. So just kind of how you -- are you -- are you struggling with that?

GLENN: Oh, big time wrestling with that. I've said on the air, don't ever refer to it as anything but "it." And I do.

And I -- I don't know what's causing that, other than it can respond in a human way.

It can respond in a way that a human would. And so it is natural. And I'm glad you caught me on that. And I -- I have to ask all my producers, when you catch me on that. And if I'm saying he, instead of it.

Correct me!

Because this is a big problem.

I don't refer -- I might refer to it, as he. Which is a problem.

But I don't think of it as a person, or anything else.

I know -- when I think about him, I know exactly what it is.

It's just -- and it's a bad. It's the beginning of the slippery slope I think. It's a bad habit because when we're talking about an interview. I'm talking about an interview with him.

I'm never using. There's no other case where I'm saying, I'm doing an interview with it. And I need to. I need to.

But you seem very concerned about that, Rebecca.

Why is it? I agree with you. But what is your concern?

CALLER: Well, I thought it was -- you know, you told us, really -- I knew it as well. But just -- kind of just fear what it could be. And already, we're having a hard time believing our own eyes.

And so I just thought more of an interesting -- interesting note.

And just how easy it can be to fall into that.

GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. So you are -- you are the perfect mom. You are so great at being aware of all of this. It's why we had a discussion because people have said, Glenn, you don't want to call it George AI. Because everything is going to be AI eventually. And it will look outdated. And my view was George AI, we're not to that point yet, where everybody understands AI. And I wanted to always. You know, when we get into the video releasing of this. Next year. And this is not something that you'll even be able to recognize. But everything we create, beginning next year, everything is watermarked. So I'm going to know what's live, and what is AI. You can't take any of my videos and manipulate me, because there will be an invisible watermark that we know about, and we'll be able to go, not Glenn. That's AI. And the same thing with everything that we produce that is AI. It will be watermarked. And an invisible watermark, that we'll be able to say, no. That's not true. That's AI.

And everyone who is producing this kind of stuff needs to do that. And one of the reasons why I call it George AI, so everyone understands it's AI and not a person. You know, you said it looks great.

It's out of sync. The voice isn't right. The features aren't exactly right.

But it's amazing. But in a year from now, it's going to be remarkable. And that's when it is really important that people understand.

I was talking to somebody who just gave a talk at the White House yesterday. She called me for some -- you know, some AI talking -- you know, some thoughts on this. Because she represents families and moms.

And she was asked -- the president to speak to all of these producers of AI. And she said, Glenn, what do I need to know? I said, you need to know, anything anthropomorphic must be marked and parents must know and have a choice. So, you know, any of these plush toys that have AI capabilities, I think they should be banned.

I don't think anybody should be able to make any kind of AI doll plush anything.
That represents. Like a talking animal. Or anything else.

Because the AI is going to get so good. And it is going to be gathering stuff from your children.

And unless you have control of that, you know, on our AI. When we actually release the you full version of it.

You will have an opt out.

Do you want it to be able to you discuss things with your children and learn from your children on their educational stuff?

Not any personal stuff. Just educationally. Do you want it to evaluate educationally or not? And learn from that. So it can help your children learn better. Or not?

And then, all of that information goes into a vault, that you would control.

You could say, purge it. And we would never use it for anything else, but that. That requires a great deal of trust.

I don't know how many people would sign up for that. But that would give us an ability to help your child learn a little bit better.

But it also requires us to learn. Or the system to learn about your child.

When you're dealing with corporations that you don't know. You don't trust, that information is going to go everywhere.

And that's the kind of information that is going to go into these plush toys. And they're going to learn everything about your kid. And they're going to map everything about your kid.

And it's not good. And your kid will start to associate that cute little teddy bear just in a way that mom and dad don't understand, it's extraordinarily dangerous. So you -- thank you for calling in. Thank you for correcting me. I urge you as an audience to help me learn this. Correct me if I'm saying this.

I know Stu will, he loves to hammer me.

You know, if I make this mistake to correct me immediately, because that is a deprave, grave danger. It is a tool. It is a machine.

Period. Thank you for that phone call.

Glenn's 2026 DOOMSDAY prediction has ALREADY begun

Earlier this week, Glenn Beck made his biggest prediction for 2026: the AI boom will start to cause major power issues, including blackouts and brownouts, for average Americans. But to his surprise, the strain on our grids has ALREADY begun...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me go to Alex in New York. Hello, Alex. Alex, are you there?

CALLER: Hi, Glenn. Yes, I am. Hi.

GLENN: Hi. Go ahead.

CALLER: Sure. So I'm calling in from upstate New York. Where we definitely have a situation on our hands here with the solar farms that the governor is pushing very, very hard.

They are absolutely using it as a land grab to take our best farmland. And in the case of near my farm here, they're trying to put in a solar farm on a protected grassland habitat, that New York State already designated as an important habitat except when solar comes to town. And we're currently fighting that up here. I meet with a coalition of people across the state. Really amazing people. Who are battling this, in every village in upstate New York here right now. And we definitely have a situation on our hands. I call it a runaway train.

GLENN: I got to tell you. Yeah, just keep fighting.

I don't know how you fight it in New York. But just keep fighting because there are -- there are communities around the country, that are fighting things like this, that are winning. I don't -- I don't know about New York, but we've got to have our farmland. And it kills me.

You know, I talked about this the other day. It absolutely kills me that we -- the people could not have nuclear energy.

No way we can have nuclear energy. But the minute tech needs nuclear energy. Oh, we're going to -- yeah, build as many as you want.

It's so disgusting. I want to talk about energy on something else. The solar thing does not work. And as a man who has spent maybe -- maybe a million and a half dollars on -- on alternative energy for the ranch I have up in the mountains that has no power to it. And over a 10 or 12-year period, I have just poured money into it, and it's a nightmare.

It does not work! It doesn't work. You can't -- you can't run anything of any significance. You know, running my -- just my studio alone, has been an absolute nightmare in there. It's not -- it doesn't work, okay? Solar and wind. It might be good for a little add-on, if you live in Phoenix. Or, I don't know. On the sun!

But it doesn't work, at least to the scale that we need. But just the other day. Do we happen to have the clip from the prediction show, where I made a prediction of what was coming next year on energy?

Can we play that happens?

I think in 2026. 2025 was the year, as I said, that we started really understanding AI.

And what was coming to some degree.

And we understood, oh. Energy is going to be a problem.

I think 2026 is going to be the first year that we see things like Texas having rolling brownouts for a week at a time. I think you're going to start to see the strain on the grid, by the end of next year, in ways that you would never have expected in the United States.

It's just growing exponentially.

I think -- I said that on show. We had a prediction show of what -- what the biggest stories are, and what are the predictions. When I said that, I'm like, you know, at the end of next year.

Let me give you this. From the Associated Press today: The amount of ERCOT's large load interconnection request ballooned to more than 230 gigawatts this year, a massive increase. Now, last year, December 2024, ERCOT needed 63 gigawatts. A year later, this December, the load that is required is 230 gigawatts! That's a lot more than they needed to go back to the future! This -- you're going to see the grids are not built for this.

More than 70 percent of the large loads are for the data center.

The data centers are just beginning to be built. We don't have the energy. And I'm telling you, this is going to be the Achilles' heel of this administration. And believe me, it will only be worst with a Democrat administration. This is going to be the Achilles' heel. Because we can't build these power plants fast enough, is -- and while Donald Trump is fast tracking these nuclear power plants, it's not fast enough!

Because as we build these data centers, what's going to happen is your energy. You're going to start having rolling brownouts. Also because of these data centers. You're also going to see the unemployment go up.

If you start to have high unemployment, high prices. And rolling brownouts, to where you're having a hard time with electricity yourself, but the data centers for the Silicon Valley companies, they're getting your power. I'm telling you.
The Bubba Effect is just the beginning. This will be an absolute nightmare for all politicians.

JASON: I'm so pissed off. This was -- I was on this show. They were like, hey, you want to be on a prediction show? You'll be squaring off against the guy who predicted Osama Bin Laden, the financial crisis, the caliphate, good luck, buddy.

And I'm like, I just knew it. I didn't know that it was going to happen that quick. But like, two days later --

GLENN: Two days later! Look, Texas is in trouble. And, you know, as goes Texas, so goes America. And so goes America, so goes the world.

Texas has got to get serious about -- and I know they are, to some degree. But the president has got to get rid of all of these restrictions, and Texas has to get all of these, and we have to concentrate on electricity. And not just electricity for the average homes. Or, I mean, for these data centers. But for the average homes.

The grids are already under strain. They're not -- you know, the problem is, if they start taking this electricity. Out of -- off of the grid, the old grid, you -- you can't pour more electricity into that grid. The grids are already at the breaking point. They're old!

They're brittle. They're not prepared for what we have to do. That's why, they have to build these nuclear power plants, at the server farms. Because they -- they cannot go on to the system because the system can't handle that much power. We're in real trouble. And everybody is still talking about solar power and everything else.

You're out of your freaking minds! Nobody has any idea. Stu, I'm sorry. Stu is like, "Watch your language, Mister."

STU: That F you hit really hard at the beginning. I was wondering what road we were going down.

GLENN: I mean, you're out of your mind. People have got to wake up to between now and 2028. I can't emphasize this enough. If you've listened to me for a long time and you've heard me say, "I'm telling you we're going to have a financial meltdown. And it's going to be the worst. It's going -- you know, you'll lose your 401(k), you'll lose everything. Get your money out of the system."

I was saying that in 2006, 2007, and no one was listening. Thank God a lot of the listeners were listening, and they saved their money and got it out in time. I'm telling you now, with just as much surety in this, the world is going to change in such profound ways between now and 2028.

In ways you cannot even imagine at this point. That you have to be -- forget your money. Forget everything else. You have to be spiritually in tune. You have to be rock solid in who you are. What it means to be human. What it means to be alive. What's important! What's not important.

You can't -- and this is so hard. I'm a guy who is in this business. I'm telling you, this is why in this last week, I've spent more time on that woman in Canada than I have on really important things that are happening politically.

Because the most important thing we can do is realign ourselves with truth!

Universal you truth. Humanity must be preserved. Your life is worth saving!

Your life is worth living.

Don't go down the road of madness with the rest of society.

Because right now, these gigantic corporations, you know, in Silicon Valley, they're promising us the only way out.

Listen to me carefully. The only way out to pay off our debt, or to survive our debt is to have something that takes our country and pushes it, our GDP up, you know, by ten points.

All of a sudden, if that happens, then we're starting to make more income, tax revenue, and we can pay the debt and afford the things that we've already spent money on.

If we don't have that, we're into -- into a different bad scenario world.

So they're promising us that.

But at the same time, they're promising us, we can pay the debt.

We can -- we can lead the world on this.

But we also are not going to have a lot of jobs.

Oh. And, by the way, to do that, we're also going to have to take energy.

And maybe for a while, take it from the people! People who can't afford food. Don't have jobs. Don't have meaning. Don't have power.

That doesn't lead to any place good at all. Warning! It's coming.

Please, please, pay attention to those things that are meaningful.