RADIOFebruary 17, 2025

JD Vance ENRAGES European Elites by Denouncing CENSORSHIP?!

It seemed like Vice President JD Vance stood alone for free speech at the Munich Security Conference. The Conference’s chairman decried Vance’s critique of European "hate speech" laws, “60 Minutes” treated Germany’s “online hate speech” police raids as normal, and CBS News’ Margaret Brennan peddled the narrative even further, by suggesting that the Nazis “weaponized” free speech to orchestrate the Holocaust. “This is extraordinarily dangerous,” Glenn says. But if America must stand alone to defend free speech, so be it.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last hour, I played a little bit of J.D. Vance's speech at the German -- or Munich Security Conference. And he talked about how free speech is under attack. In Europe!

And he didn't just point out that it was Europe, that was having this problem.

But he said, it had to end. But let's not stand here and point the finger at you. Pragmatism let's point it to ourselves as well. Cut seven.

GLENN: And in the interest of comedy my friends, but also in the interest of truth. I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship, have come not from within Europe. But from within my own country. Where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation.

Misinformation like, for example, the idea that contester had likely leaked from a laboratory in China. Our own government encouraged private companies to silence people, who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth.

So I come here today, not just with an observation. But with an offer. Just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds. So the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that.

And Washington, there is a new sheriff in town. And under Donald Trump's leadership. We may disagree with your views. But we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square. Agree or disagree.

GLENN: Wow! Didn't go over well. In fact, here's the Munich Security Conference chairperson, closing out the convention. Listen to this.

VOICE: This conference started as a transatlantic conference after this speech of Vice President Vance on Friday. We have to fear that our common value base is not that common anymore. I'm very grateful to all those European politicians that spoke out, and reaffirmed the values and principles, that they are defending.

No one did this better than President Zelinsky. Let me conclude that this becomes difficult.
(applauding)

GLENN: He was applauded for crying. That we don't have the same values in common anymore.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: If this is the way Germany and the rest of Europe feels about freedom of speech, then, yes. We don't have the same values. And I don't care if we stand completely alone! We've done it before. And when it comes to freedom of the individual, if that's what it takes, that's what we must become. We have to square our shoulders and remember our principles. Yes! If you want to shut down free expression and free speech, which means you have to let the worst be said, so you can actually have dialogue, learn from one another, learn from the past, and not just become a zombie robot, with an out-of-control government that you can never speak against. Well, that's who we are!

That's what we stand against. I will tell you, that their own people -- I can guarantee you, are not for it. How do I know? Well, let me show you what happened on 60 minutes. Here's 60 minutes, joining a German police censorship raid.
(music)

VOICE: It's 6:01 on a Tuesday morning. And we are with state police as they rated this apartment in northwest Germany.

Inside, six armed officers search a suspect's home. Then seized his laptop and cell phone. Prosecutors say, those electronics may have been used to commit a crime. The crime? Posting a racist cartoon online.

At the exact same time, across Germany, more than 50 similar raids played out. Part of what prosecutors say, is a coordinated effort to curb online hate speech in Germany.

GLENN: Now, I don't like hate speech. I don't like seeing racist cartoons. But that is part of life! It depends on who is in power. On how you define hate. And when you have a government, able to take away inalienable rights, you have a real problem on your hand. Sixty minutes continues.

VOICE: Is it a crime to insult somebody in public?

VOICE: Yes, it is. Of course.

VOICE: And it's a crime to insult them online as well?

VOICE: Even higher, insulting someone on the internet.

VOICE: Why?

VOICE: Because in internet, it stays there. If we are talking face-to-face, you insult me, I insult you. Okay. Finished. But if you're on the internet, if I insult a politician.

VOICE: Then it takes around forever.

The prosecutors explain German law also prohibits the spread of malicious gospel, violent threats, and fake quotes.

VOICE: If somebody posts something that is not true. And then somebody else reposts it or likes it, are they committing a crime?

VOICE: In the case of reposting with, it's a crime as well. Because the reader can't distinguish between whether you just invented this or just reposted it?

VOICE: The punishment for breaking hate speech laws can include jail time for repeat offenders.

GLENN: Jail time. Jail time.

If you say something offense about a politician. Did anybody catch that? If you say something offensive about a politician. You can be charged with a height crime. You do it several times, and you will go to prison!

STU: That's a question of how much do we have in in common, before J.D. Vance's speech?

Apparently, not that much.

GLENN: Clearly not.

STU: If those are your laws, it's a crime?

You can't trust people to be able to decipher whether a quote is fake or not?

It's -- it's not their responsibility to -- to look it up themselves?

GLENN: Listen to cut three. CBS. Not pushing back.

VOICE: To build their cases, investigators scour social media, and use public and government data.

They say, sometimes social media companies will provide information to prosecutors, but not always. So the task force employs special software investigators to help unmask anonymous users.

VOICE: So this is suggest you kill people seeking asylum here.

VOICE: He says his unit has prosecuted about 750 hate speech cases over the last four years, but it was a 2021 case, involving a local politician, named Andy Groat, that captured the country's attention.

Groat complained about a tweet, that called him a pimmel. A German word for the male anatomy. That triggered a police raid, and accusations of excessive censorship by the government. As prosecutors explained to us in Germany, it's okay to debate politics online. But it can be a crime to call anyone a pimmel, even a politician.

VOICE: So it sounds like you're saying, it's okay to criticize a politician's policy. But not to say, I think you're a jerk and an idiot?

VOICE: Exactly. Like you're a son of a bitch. Excuse me for -- these words have nothing to do with a political discussions or a contribution of a discussion.

STU: And it's up to him to decipher whether it contributes or not.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah. Boy, you better be careful if you're going over to Germany any time soon.

GLENN: 60 Minutes finally asks about some free speech issues. Listen to this.

VOICE: That this feels like the surveillance that Germany conducted 80 years ago. How do you respond to that?

VOICE: There is no surveillance.

VOICE: (inaudible) is a CEO of Hate Aid, a Berlin-based human rights organization, that supports victims of online violence.

VOICE: In the United States, a lot of people say, this is restricting free speech. It's a threat to democracy.

VOICE: Free speech needs boundaries.

GLENN: Hmm.

STU: Ah.

VOICE: In the case of Germany. These boundaries are part of our Constitution. Without boundaries, a very small group of people can rely on endless freedom to say anything that they want.

GLENN: Endless freedom.

STU: Oh, my gosh. It's scary.

VOICE: And your fear is, if people were freely attacked online, that they will withdraw from the discussion?

VOICE: This is not only a fear. It's already taking place. Already half of the internet users in Germany are afraid to express their political opinion. Many participate in public debates online anymore, half of the internet users.

STU: Of course. You're putting them in prison. When they say the wrong thing.

GLENN: I mean, it is Gestapo, with today's technology.

I've warned you. With today's technology, and what is right around the corner, you put a Hitler in charge of it.

STU: And there's not a Jew left in the world.

There's no place to hide in the entire world. This is extraordinarily dangerous.

Now, that's -- that was the extent of the CBS pushback on the Germans.

STU: That was a lot though.

GLENN: Then you get Marco Rubio. And they go to Marco Rubio, to ask him about this. Listen.

VOICE: Well, he was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide. And he met with the head of a political party, that has far right views. And some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that, was changing the tone of it.

GLENN: Changing the tone.

VOICE: Well, I have to disagree with you. No. I have to disagree with you.

Free speech is not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by authoritarian Nazi regime, that happened to be genocidal, because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those -- the list of people they hated. But primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none.

There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany. They were the sole and only party that governed that country. So that's not an accurate reflection of history.

STU: Obviously.

GLENN: The free speech caused the Holocaust.

STU: Amazing.

GLENN: Free speech.

You couldn't speak out against the Nazis.

Who doesn't learn that in school? Well, probably most Americans. And clearly the journalists here in America. You had no free speech! How do you get everybody to give the Heil Hitler salute?

You don't do that by becoming popular. They didn't. They did it by beating people in the streets.

You will do this, when we salute. If you don't, we'll beat you to death in the streets. And we can get away with it. Because our guy is in power. There was no free speech! This is insanity! Now, I want to show you what -- what J.D. Vance said, that made the guy cry.

In Germany!

Now, I want you to remember that the Munich security conference chair cried at the closing of the conference.

Cried!

Because he realized the United States was no longer on the same side as Germany and Europe!

Now, that seems crazy. But, no. I'm not on the same side of people who want to silence anyone.

I am not for the silencing of people on the left here, I am not for silencing the people in the middle. Or the right.

Even to the extreme. Free speech is an absolute!

Unless you're calling for violence and it actually turns into violence. No! But you can say whatever it is you want. I know that sounds extreme. It didn't used to. But apparently, it does now.

Here's what J.D. Vance said. And if you think that Germany is the problem. Listen to this from J.D. Vance. Listen to this.

VOICE: I look to Brussels where the EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest. The moment they spot what they've judged to be, quote, hateful content.

Or to this very country prepare police have carried out raids against citizens, suspected of posting antifeminist comments online. As part of, quote, combating misogyny on the internet.

A day of action. I look to Sweden, where two weeks ago, the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Koran burnings that resulted in his friends' murder.

And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden's laws to supposedly protect free expression, do not, in fact, grant, and I'm quoting, a free pass to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief.

And perhaps, most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom. Where the backslide away from conscience have put basic liberties of religious Britains in the crosshairs.

A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith conner, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and Army veteran. With the heinous crime of sanding 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes. Not obstructing anyone.

Not interacting with anyone. Just silently praying on his own.

After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for. Adam replied, simply it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his girlfriend had aborted years before.

Now, the officers were not moved.

Adam was found guilty of breaking the government's new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility.

He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution. Now, I wish I could say this was a fluke, a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person.

But no, this last October, just a few months ago. The Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens, whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes, may amount to breaking the law.

Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizen suspected guilty of thought crime. And Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear is in retreat.

GLENN: What part of that, did you disagree with.

What part of that makes you want to embrace the European Union?

For me, it's quite the opposite. I've always believed that Europe, our brothers and sisters, and we're fine.

And we should help one another. But I have to tell you, I no longer am comfortable with a single dollar going over to Europe, to defend those kinds of policies.

You're not on the same side.

We are not on the same side! If you violate freedom of speech, that way.

And remember, this is why Klaus Schwab told Europe, just believe in the system.

Well, what is the system?

We found out, the system is, if the people vote for a candidate that is not going to play ball. If they are at all in line with freedom of speech, they're a radical, need to be shut down.

And we cancel that election. Until the people get it right!

That's a dictatorship! We are seeing the hatred of the old Germany. And Europe. Start to grow again. And Europe could become a very large foe of freedom.

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

Michelle Obama has a podcast. Who knew?

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

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

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

Cut one please.

VOICE: Wait, you guys like each other.

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

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

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

OBAMA: I know. I know.

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

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

VOICE: Okay. Don't make me cry.

PAT: Aw.

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

VOICE: And welcome to IMO.

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

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

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

VOICE: Of course, I've been listening.

PAT: What? No!

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

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

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

Gives her a little peck on the cheek.

PAT: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Does that --

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, maybe.

PAT: I think it was a little uncomfortable.

GLENN: It was a little uncomfortable.

It's still, maybe. Maybe.

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

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

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

PAT: He was about to vomit. Yeah.

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

He doesn't like women, what is happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

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

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

Don't even start with me.

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

PAT: The other awkward thing about that.

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

Where she's considered reeving him.

GLENN: Yeah.

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

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

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

I don't know.

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

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

Grandma, we're getting a divorce.

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

And I said, what?

We're getting a divorce.

And she said, how dare you.

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

And I said, what?

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

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

PAT: Wow.

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

PAT: Yeah. Yeah. Uh-huh.

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

PAT: Did she know your first wife?

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

No, Trump’s tariffs ARE NOT causing inflation

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

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I don't think I'm wrong.

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

That tariffs don't work.

They increase inflation.

It's going to cost us more.

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

Tell me what's going on.

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

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

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

But, anyway, go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Correct.

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

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

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

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

There's very, very little movement overall.

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

Wait.

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

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

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

So where are they?

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

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

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

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

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

Because that's a real option.

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

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

That's entirely possible.

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

That's not where the inflation is coming.

Instead, it's coming from housing.

That's part of the CPI at that time.

Housing is the cause of inflation right now.

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

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

It's not building.

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

GLENN: Okay.

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

Or housing prices to buy a new house.

They are talking about rent.

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Right.

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

I mean, come on!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. All right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. But we had one month.

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

JUSTIN: I looked it up.

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

It was 20 something years ago.

So this is incredible, really.

And if it works.

You and I talked about this before.

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

So that they can be competitive.

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

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

The plan is, go all in on artificial intelligence.

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

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

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

They don't care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have no hope.

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

GLENN: Yes.

Well, I tend to agree with you.

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

I war gamed this, probably in 2006.

I'm thinking, okay.

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

They won't be real on popular.

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

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

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

What can be done now.

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

But they need each other.

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

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

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

And I don't think I am.

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

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

Agree with that or disagree?

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

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

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

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

GLENN: Yeah. Right. Right.

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

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

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

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

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