RADIONovember 18, 2020

Investigation into Russia collusion HOAX may have been ABANDONED?

Sean David, co-founder of the Federalist, tells Glenn several sources report that special prosecutor John Durham — chosen by AG Barr to investigate those involved with the Russian collusion hoax — may be giving up on it all. The investigation lost steam in September, hinting that something big may have happened behind the scenes to convince Durham to slow momentum. David says we'll be lucky if we get a REPORT from Durham, losing hope for any kind of indictment. So, what happens to America if our justice system fails?

"You're being PLAYED": Glenn Beck exposes the TRUTH about Illinois' new MAiD program

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has signed a bill legalizing "medical assistance in dying" (MAiD) for certain terminally ill patients. Glenn Beck rages against this "culture of death" that is sweeping America, even after it ravaged Canada.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So JB Pritzker in Illinois signed into law a bill on Friday, that will allow doctors in Illinois to prescribe the deaths of their own patients. First, do no harm. I'm having a hard time with that, doctors. Maybe you can tell us how you're getting around this. First, do no harm.

That is a very important concept, that our doctors are to buy into. And that we all believe.

First, do no harm. If you don't have that, all kinds of things can follow. Especially when they're couched with compassion.

And that is exactly what this is always couched in. Compassion.

Okay. So this new law goes into effect in September of next year. Terminally ill patients over the age of 18 are going to be able to get a suicide drug from their doctor. This is the 12th state in the country, that is allowing assisted suicide. And there are about 25 others that are standing in line for it. What a surprise.

Illinois is the -- is the one -- the first of this -- this batch of them coming in to say, I want to kill people!

It is a culture of death. And we are -- that's what we are battling. No matter what anybody tells you, we're not battling the Republicans or the Democrats.

It's not politics.

It's not Marxism.

It is a culture of death, that we're battling. It is evil. It is evil. A culture of death.

When you look at -- when you look at what people are saying about global warming, what is the solution?

Fewer people. How do you do that? Well, culture of death takes care of that. Right?

When you look at -- when you look at, you know, just about anything now, health care, abortion, culture of death.

Islam, culture of death. Marxism, honestly, it is a culture of death. Why would I say that know.

Well, because it eliminates people who disagree with it. And first, it just pushes them off the sidelines.

But eventually it ends in camps. But also, look what's being taught to our kids. They are killing themselves, because they're so depressed. Because it has no meaning. It completely rejects the you human aspect of humanity.

Culture of death. That's really what we're fighting. Make no mistake.

Now, Illinois and Pritzker, they're saying, well, no. No, no, no. This is going to be -- we're going to be very, very careful. You have to have two doctors. Okay. That's good. That's good.

Germany had three doctors, to give you permission. You're not even up the line of Nazi Germany, but congratulations on that. And they have to be diagnosed with having six months or less to live.

Okay. Okay.

I want you to know, Illinois, America, Western world, you're being played. This is not compassion.

I'm going to be real clear with you.

This is preparation for when the system can no longer afford to fulfill its promises, that's what this is.

They are preparing the system to be able to have the way out. And they're preparing you, so you look at this as compassion and so when it gets worse and worse, up until the very end, you don't recognize it. I mean, they're beginning to a little bit in Canada, to see what's coming their way. And why is it happening? Because they can no longer afford socialized medicine. They can't afford to fulfill the promises.

Let me just say, can America afford to fulfill its promise, that it's made for generations on all of this socialized everything?

No. In fact, there are people now, trying to double down. We can't afford anything. They're trying to double down and expand those programs, which will only collapse us faster.

When they collapse, you know, nobody likes. Well, rich people can get surgery. And as I've said to you before, I don't like that either. I really don't like that. But how else do you do it? How else do you do it? Well, we have a committee. And we -- we ration things. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Here's where you're not going to like that. You're not going to like that, because that's not the way humans work. When they ration things, either people with money or the people with power, always find a way to short-circuit so they can get to the top.

So the one that you're saying now is the poor, helpless waif that's not getting anything because of the rich people, when the system changes, that poor lonely waif is still not going to get any help because the powerful, the ones that are connected, they'll get the medical care, and the waif won't get medical care. People will find a way to short-circuit the system because people generally suck.

And when you give all the power to people, it's not good. It's usually not good. So you may not like the, you know, pay for it kind of system, but it is the best one out there. And you really don't want to give a bureaucracy the -- the ability to kill you if you become expensive or inconvenient.

Now, I know that's not what they're saying. That's not what we're doing. We're giving people out of compassion, help them end their lives. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. That's exactly what happened in Canada. Let me just tell you. It was called C14. Let me just look up the facts here. C14 in Canada. It happened in 2016.

And it -- what it -- what it meant was, you could get compassionate care, if you had doctors. Three doctors approved.

You had a terminal, I don't remember what they called it.

But basically, you could see the end in sight. Okay?

There was -- there was no way for us to repair your body and heal you.

So we could see that.

Basically, you know, you were terminal.

We could see that.

In the future. Near future.

And three doctors agreed.

And then you had a waiting period after you requested it, the doctors would approve.

And then there were ten days, before you would administer. Ten days before you would back out.

That's what it started as, okay?

That's not what it's become. 2016, that's what it was. And you had to be 18 years or older.

And you had to have full capacity. So you couldn't listen to, you know, friends or family.

You had to make the decision. And you needed full capacity.

Okay.
Then things started to fall apart.

Then we had COVID. Then we had all these expenses. Then we had people move into the country.

This is Canada. Same thing happened here. COVID. Hospitals are overwhelmed.

Medical care goes to hell.

And then you start bringing in people from all over the world.

And now you don't have hospital care. Everybody is crowded. The doctors are overwhelmed.
And so in 2021, they decided the Quebec court decided, well, you know, death in the foreseeable future. Is that really necessary?

Excuse me?

I mean -- I mean, the reasonable foreseeable natural death requirement. Do we really need that?

The court said, no, we really don't.

There are two tracks! Those who have natural death in the foreseeable future. We're going to make it a little easier for them. So beyond the request, the three doctors and the ten-day waiting period. We're going to get rid of some of that because it's not necessary.

I mean, if you're in the reasonably foreseeable future, you don't need all those safeguards. And then people whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. Well, we're going to make them do all of those things. Oh, okay.

And, by the way, we're removing the ten-day waiting period too. Once the doctor says, you're good, you're good.

Okay. All right.

That wasn't far enough. Now, they have a new bill, C7.

Canada bill seven.

When they -- when that removed the foreseeable requirement, they added a temporary exclusion for people whose sole medical condition was a mental disorder.

Oh, wow. So now we're into mental illness.

So your death isn't in the foreseeable future.

But you really want to die.

So does this apply to mental.

People with mental problems?

Oh, no, no, no. No. We're not going to ban it. We're just going to put a temporary ban on that one?

Why would you put a temporary ban on that?

Why would you put a temporary ban on something like that?

Let me give you the answer and you tell you what else it's done and bring it home for you here in just a second.

Okay. So why would you -- why would you remove the restriction on the mentally ill?

Remember, the first thing was -- the first thing was, you've got to be -- you've got to be fully there.

You have to be competent and aware of what you're doing.

Then they said, well, the foreseeable future thing.

Your death is inevitable. We're going to take that away.

But we're going to put a temporary restriction on mental illness.

The only reason why you would make that a temporary restriction, is because you're just trying to get the rest of the society to catch up with what you're going to do.

That's the only reason.

And that's why, it has been extended.

Okay?

It was supposed to end in 2023.

Then it was extended to March 2024.

And now, it has been pushed to 2027.

Okay?

So you're not eligible for MAID until March 2027, if you have a mental illness.

Hmm.

Huh! Now, they may push it forward again, to give it more time to convince everybody that that's what they have to do.

And how do you convince people?

Well, you convince people, because there's shortages and be that person doesn't have the capability to think they're mentally ill. They might want to tie. They're very, very depressed. They're very depressed, and so they want to die anyway.

They want to die. I need the doctor. Okay?

That's what's going to happen. That's what's going to happen.

Unless we remember who we are. Unless all of a sudden, we -- we're like, you know what, that's -- you know, that's not who we are.

That's not the West. The West is not defined by its technology.

Even by its freedom or its wealth.

Everybody thinks, oh, the West. They're wealthy.

No. That's not it.

What makes us unique in the West. The entire West Canada, included. All of Europe. This radical idea that the individual has inherent value.

That nobody is expendable.

And not because they're useful, not because they're productive, not because they're convenient.
They have an inherent right to exist, to live.
If you look at the past, you look at Athens and Rome.
Oh. I mean, they just put you -- you this put babies that were not boys, that were girls. Where they were deforming.

They throw them on a garbage barge. These barges would go down the river. With screaming babies on them. They just let them die, okay?

That's the way it does. But West through Judeo Christian ethics taught us, that's not right!

And we build hospitals before skyscrapers.

We put limits on -- on force. We teach doctors to heal. Not to calculate.

When a society like ours stops choosing life, it does not become more compassion.

It becomes more efficient. Not compassionate! Efficient!

And efficiency has never given birth 20 moral virtue.

Efficiency kills it. If that's your goal. It kills it.

Fighting this culture of death, it is the most important thing we can focus on.

A lot of people will focus on politics and everything else.

And what JB Pritzker is doing here, there, and everywhere else.

I don't even care about politics.

We have to convince one another, we have to start standing up for the principles that made the West, the West.

Because without the choice to protect life at its most fragile, we are no longer a civilization worth saving! We're just another system deciding, eh, I don't know, is that worth the trouble? And history is very clear where that society ends. That's why, last week, to me, it was so personal, and so important.

To help this woman, not just because it's the right thing to do. And because every life matters. And this happened to be a life that came across my path.

And I'm like, we've got to stop that! But because, this goes to something bigger! And it is infecting us right now. And if we buy the lies, that this is for compassion. Look! I understand. I understand pain. I understand end of life. I don't want to be in that situation.

I know, you don't want to be.

I mean, I know what it feels like with my dog, putting my dog down. It kills me. It kills me to put my dog down. So I get it on the dog level, let alone, you know, a parent level or a spouse level. I get it.

But you cannot as a society go down this road. Because once you open this door, all the other doors just start to swing open. When there's trouble!
The first sign of shortage, all those doors open up. And guess what we're headed for. Shortages.

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.