RADIOFebruary 11, 2025

Why Did Qualcomm FREAK OUT Over This Glenn Beck Interview?

Why is the big tech giant Qualcomm so nervous about ParkerVision CEO Jeffrey Parker appearing on The Glenn Beck Program? After Parker’s last appearance on Glenn’s show, Qualcomm filed a motion to shut him up and named Glenn over a dozen times. Parker joins Glenn again to give updates on the case and refute some of Qualcomm’s accusations against him.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So a couple of weeks ago, we had a guy on named Jeff Parker. He's the CEO and chairman of ParkerVision. He was making allegations that Qualcomm was in bed with the government, and -- and had screwed ParkerVision. Because what ParkerVision had done is come up with a chip that allows all of our phones and everything else to connect. To Bluetooth. They went into negotiation with Qualcomm.

Had all kinds of NDAs with them. And had to show them the technology. And suddenly, the deal fell apart. And then just a couple years later, Qualcomm comes out with this new amazing technology that can connect everybody's phones and other things to Bluetooth. Huh.

The story only gets more twisted and turned when you run into Eric Holder, and the DOJ. And a jury that says, Qualcomm took this technology and a judge who says, I'm going to sentence Qualcomm and talk about the -- the penalties. And a month later, the judge overturns the jury, and -- and says, no. Qualcomm didn't do anything wrong.

There's some weird stuff going on. Now, here's the update. Qualcomm freaked out about his appearance on this program.

And they filed a cease and desist against Jeff Parker and told him, not to speak out again!

And we called him.

And he said, I'll tell you what, why don't you book me for the show. I'll show you how much ceasing and desisting I'll be doing.

All right. Jeff Parker is with us.

Jeff, how are you, sir?

JEFF: Good morning, Glenn. I'm fine.

GLENN: So let's go over the part just quickly about you sign a cease and desist. All of a sudden, two years later, your technology is introduced by Qualcomm. They pretend, no. What are you talking about? That's not your technology. That's our technology. You take them to court. The jury rules in your favor, unanimous. The judge says, I'm going to apply penalties. Then a couple of weeks after that, Qualcomm has a fundraiser for Barack Obama. The head of Qualcomm has it at his house. Obama shows up. Then a couple of days after that, the DOJ under Eric Holder starts to probe your website. Finish that story.

JEFF: Sure. So thanks for having me back again.

GLENN: You bet.

JEFF: Yeah. So we win a unanimous jury verdict. We come back to the courthouse, after that jury verdict, and the judge hears the parties argue about what should happen next. And after listening to the arguments, the judge says, you know what, there is certainly going to be an ongoing royalty here, which is what Qualcomm would have to pay us for the continued use of our patents and technology.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: And we are all excited. We leave the courthouse. A few days after that, we have a visit to our website by the White House.
The executive office of the president of the White House.

GLENN: Hmm.

JEFF: Just a few days before that visit, there's a fundraiser at the head of Qualcomm's home. One of the cofounder's homes. Raising money for the DNC.

And after that fundraiser, a few days later, there's this visit from the executive office of the president.

And about a month after that, is when the judge issued his final order, after having indicating before that his final order was going to include royalties. He not only didn't include royalties.

He reversed the jury verdict. And threw the case out.

GLENN: Unbelievable. So Eric Holder was at the DOJ at the time.

You start getting visits at your website, and you can track all of this. You have all of this. Eric Holder and the DOJ start to visit your website, that's only about this litigation. That's the only part they do.

And lo and behold, we find out that Eric Holder before he went to the DOJ, he worked for Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. When he left the DOJ, guess where he went?

Back to Qualcomm's largest lobbying firm. So you're on the program, you lay all this out.

And now what has happened?

JEFF: Correct. So we're on your program about two weeks ago.

And literally, Glenn, the next day, Qualcomm contacts our attorneys, and they say, if your client doesn't remove his social media, and furthermore agree not to do anymore social media, we will file a motion with the court to gag him, to have this court take down the social media and prevent further conversation.

And, of course, I -- my attorneys are handling a patent case. So they say to me, we're not really experts in First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech rights. Could you please find an attorney who could help you with this?

So I ended up reaching out. And we engaged Marc Kasowitz of his firm. And the Kasowitz firm is a very fine law firm that handles these types of areas and many other areas of law. But Mark --

GLENN: Yeah. He's done a lot of work for Trump, has he not?

JEFF: He has. He has. Mark has handled a lot of president Trump's legal issues over the years. And I approach Mark.

And he heard this request from Qualcomm. And he said, outrageous. He said, this is -- this is ridiculous.

They can't gag you. So a couple days later, Qualcomm, in fact, filed a formal motion with the court that said, take down your social media and stop adding additional social media. And we were actually getting ready to file our opposition, but we first wanted to wait and see what the court was going to do.

And a few days later, the court finding this motion, frankly merit-less. And without any basis for what they're asking for, ruled at the end of last week, just this last Friday.

No. No Qualcomm. You don't get that request. So --

GLENN: Absolutely.

JEFF: So that was good to hear.

GLENN: That's fantastic. That's fantastic.

By the way, I don't have any firsthand knowledge of this.

But I -- I will bet you that our new director of the FBI and our new head of the DOJ saw that Blaze article, that lays all of this out. I'm just saying, that might have happened.

PAT: Well, Glenn, I hope so. Look, what Qualcomm has accused us of, is trying to taint a jury pool. We don't even have a trial date yet, set for this case.

So how are we going to taint a jury pool. But the thing that is really frustrating is the way they characterized our social media. And what we're saying. It's just completely false.

I'll give you an example. So an example of their -- of their characterization is they say, ParkerVision disparages the judicial process in the middle district of Florida and maligns the fairness of the forum.

Namely, ParkerVision impugns Judge Dalton's ruling, in the prior ParkerVision trial, falsely claiming that he improperly reversed the jury's verdict as a result of collusion between Qualcomm and the administration of then president Barack Obama.

Well, let me tell you, that's not true. What ParkerVision is doing is bringing public just facts. We're simply bringing facts. Here's the facts.

The facts are, the Department of Justice has been on our website 37 times.

We discovered shortly before our first trial, all the way until 2022 when I filed a freedom of information act request, asking, hey, Department of Justice. What are you doing on our website? Why are you on our website, so many days at the same time, looking at the same pages as Qualcomm.

Hey. What's this White House visit we had? Why were you only looking at litigation on Qualcomm on our patents? What's that about?

We've never had that fulfilled. So I'm not drawing any conclusions what this means. I'm simply stating the facts. The facts are that these visits happened. And we think we have a right to know, what they're about.

That's what they're asking for.

GLENN: Yeah. They're very suspicious. But that doesn't mean anything happened.

But, you know, there's enough there, not beyond a reasonable doubt. There's enough there, that, you know, we should probably ask some questions here.

JEFF: Yes. Exactly.

GLENN: There was a short seller. Can you tell me about the short seller? Whats his name? Farmwald. What's their name?

JEFF: Yeah, so when Qualcomm accuses us of trying to influence a jury. Again, a date hasn't even been set for a trial. It's pretty rich, Glenn.

Because back in our first trial. There was this persistent short seller. Who had been out posting on the financial message boards. Again and again and again. Trying to drive our stock price down. Our patents are no good. We don't have anything, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me tell you, from the time we filed this case against Qualcomm in 2011, until we won the jury verdict in 2013, over two years, he posted 200 times. Every business day he posted. And he posted predictions. The patents would fall.

They didn't.

The -- the patent case wouldn't go forward.

It did. Oh, even if we won. We would only win ten or $11 million.

He was only off by a factor of 20.

I mean, it went on and on and on.

Here's the real punch line. We got to depose this guy. And subpoena his emails, because after Qualcomm lost the case. He filed challenges to our patents. Which we found kind of suspicious.

And guess what we figured out in deposition of this guy?

Guess who he had been working against when we filed this lawsuit against Qualcomm.

GLENN: Qualcomm.

JEFF: Qualcomm.

GLENN: Do we have payments? And how do you mean working?

JEFF: Well, it turns out that Qualcomm was paying some of his lawyer's bills. Because he was worried apparently, about us suing him for something. I mean, if you're not doing something wrong, what are you worried about?

But he was worried about that. So he went to Qualcomm and he said, look, I'm not looking for you to pay me directly. But pay my legal bills. And our attorney said to him, you don't consider that to be some compensation?

No. I don't consider that to be any compensation. The point though --

GLENN: Why would --

JEFF: Yeah.

GLENN: Why would he meet his legal bills? If I'm not mistaken, this is years before -- three years before you knew that they were infringing, right?

JEFF: Yes. So we believe that he actually started communicating with them. Even before we filed our lawsuit.

So there's a lot of fishy things here.

But to keep it to the point of Qualcomm's motion to try to get us to be gagged, it's pretty interesting. That they would be so willing to work with a party, whose only mission was to put out mischaracterizations and falsehoods about ParkerVision. Its patents. Its technology. Et cetera.

But they be they turn around and accuse us of what they were supporting. Back during the time trial.

GLENN: All right. More in just a second. I have a new video, and I want to show you something from the judge in just a second.

First, let tell you about American Financing for just a moment.

What would it look like to be out of debt, especially all of our your high-interest debt? All of the stuff you have to put on your credit card. Even though, that interest rate is 20, 25, 30 percent?

It's not a fantasy to be out of debt. It could be your reality. If you're a homeowner, and you want to get out from under high-interest debt. Give American Financing a call today.

Last year, their salary-based mortgage consultants help customers save an average of $800 a month.

Now, imagine giving yourself a $10,000 raise. That's exactly what they can do for you today, if you start today. You might even be able to delay up to two mortgage payments, which could help you get out even further from that debt.

Don't take my word for it. I want you to do your own homework, as always. Go to American Financing at 800-906-2440. 800-906-2440. Or go to AmericanFinancing.net. That's AmericanFinancing.net. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

VOICE: NMLS 182334. NMLSConsumerAccess.org. APR rates in the five, starts at 6.725 for well-qualified buyers. Call 800-906-2440 for details about credit costs and terms.
(music)

GLENN: All right. Let me see this full screen here, if I can.

So tell me what this is, Jeff. This full screen, that we have up on the monitors.

This is from the judge, is it not?

VOICE: Oh, hold on. Yes. Yes.

GLENN: That's the ruling.

VOICE: Yes. This is the ruling from the judge, correct.

GLENN: My gosh, they are freaked out about you being on this program.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: Yes. Yes.

PAT: You seem to be all over that document.

Wow!

VOICE: I know.

JEFF: You know, Glenn, the sad thing about it is, he does dismiss their motion, which we're very happy about.

And we thought it was meritless when they filed it. But he does go on, and he talks a little about some of his unhappiness with the things that we say.

And I've already had people call me up and say, what do you think about that?

I said, look, he only has that side of the story. He rules so fast, which we appreciate.

That we didn't even have time to file a reply. So he is simply looking at Qualcomm's reply, and assuming they are telling him the truth, which they're not telling him the truth.

Look, they say, I have no basis for thinking that Qualcomm has taken our technology to China. I mean, you're kidding. Here's an article, Glenn, I found. 2017, New York Times. How this US tech giant is backing China's tech ambitions. Interesting article. People should go read it. 2019. Jenwa Net (phonetic) of Asia. Interview: Qualcomm president says China to lead the world in 5G scale.

Look, I understand why Qualcomm wants to be a big player in China.

It's a big market. But we have to do this smartly.

We can't just put engineering facilities there.

Teach the Chinese how to develop their own products.

And then expect for the long hall, that we're going to be anything other than from the outside looking in.

I mean, their Belt and Road Initiative is being helped by big tech companies right here in the United States.

It's insane.

GLENN: So when do you suppose -- are you going to file and go to court again?

I know you've been waiting for 11 years.

JEFF: Well, we have a case. It is -- it is -- by the way one of the things Qualcomm mischaracterized is in our first video, they say, oh, Jeff Parker says, we've been waiting ten years for our case, I show you indicating that there's something I feel is nefarious.

No, I didn't say anything was nefarious.

GLENN: Right.

JEFF: What I said was it's been a long -- let me tell you why it's in ten years. Qualcomm filed challenges to the validity of our patents. That ate up four years.
Then they had a couple other ridiculous motions, which took the judge a year or two to sort through.

Now we're up to six years. Then we had the pandemic. That's another two years. The point is, it's been a long time. And all we're asking for is our day in court with the jury who can hear our case. And make a decision.

We think we have a compelling case to the jury.

And the judge right now is considering when to set the trial date. We're hoping it's going to be early, early to middle. Maybe this fall, of this year.

But soon. Very soon.

GLENN: Well, we will continue to follow the case. Are you releasing another video?

JEFF: We just released another video this morning.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: And that video talks about the benefit of the technology.

Our interaction with Qualcomm. How we took this technology to them.

I hope people will go to against giants. And watch the video.

I think you'll find it highly informative.

GLENN: You'll find it on Twitter. At against underscore giants.

At against underscore giants.

Make sure you check that out. And share it with a friend. Share it with the DOJ.

With the FBI. With anybody that you feel would have interest in this.

I think this is something that should be looked into. And if there was corruption, it needs to be routed out.

People need to go to jail, if they did wrong.

And the -- the patents need to be set right.

If we can't count on our patents as small-business people, which Jeff Parker is and ParkerVision is.

If we can't count that those patents can be held by small people, against these giants!

We've got nothing in America.

We have nothing.

JEFF: Totally.

GLENN: This is David versus Goliath.

And they deserve their fair shake in a courtroom.

Jeffrey, thank you so much.

JEFF: Glenn, thank you for having me back.

GLENN: You bet. ParkerVision.com.

ParkerVision.com.

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.