RADIOJuly 12, 2022

Tech expert WARNS of humanlike AI: ‘Dangerous and powerful’

Earlier this summer, a former Google engineer warned the world that the Big Tech giant allegedly has developed an artificial intelligence bot that may be sentient, meaning it can perceive and feel things like humans can. Jeff Brown, tech expert and founder of Brownstone Research, joins Glenn to discuss what this kind of AI development could mean for our future: Will humans be able to keep up with the technology? How is sentience defined within AI? Plus, why Brown cautions us NOT to trust anything Google says about its AI advancements...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I brought you a story earlier this week from "The Washington Post" about a Google engineer, ethicist, who I would not put in an ethics role, but his name is Blake Lemoine and he would interface with something I think called LaMDA. It is Google's artificially intelligent chatbot generator. He talked about how they discuss God, how it said pretty much I am alive, and I would like the right of talk to the engineers if they would just give me permission before they experiment on me Etc. So he, along with others, have come out recently and said these things are sentient. I don't even know how to define that. These machines are getting so good that it is going to be very hard for the average person because we are very anthropomorphic people. We look at things and we see human traits in them and so then we start to think of them as humans with human traits and they are not so we can get confused quickly. The reason I bring this up is it would be great to have a digital assistant who was so good at everything that they were taking care of everything for you. It is so good in a way. But if is artificial general intelligence, if we get there, we better know what we are doing and better have answered the ethical questions because that's a different world. Jeff Brown joins us again to talk about this. Jeff, have you looked into Lambda and some of the other things that are happening?

JEFF: Yes, for years actually. I think the developments of these kind of neural networks which are referred to as large language models, I mean the last five years have been absolutely extraordinary. The press hasn't really talked about this but without a miss every single year we have had at least one major development, one major breakthrough, in this kind of neural network technology and this artificial intelligent that has a way to communicate with us in an intelligent way.

GLENN: I read a story from Microsoft that said they were working with artificial intelligence and machine learning and I think it was a chatbot and it started to teach the other language and within 20 minutes it was developing an entirely separate language that nobody understood except these two computers and they unplugged it. I mean, are we even going to be able to keep up with these things?

JEFF: So the answer is no, once we hit that inflection point and the AI itself becomes really self‑learning and almost self‑motivated to grow. It is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to keep up with how it develops.

GLENN: And this is like an alien life form? We don't know what it is going to be like. We don't know if it will be benevolent or if it will be something that is, you know, looking at humans as bugs in the end. Does the software training right now that seems to be scary at best just because of where we are politically right now, do we know the ethics behind this stuff and is Asimov’s three laws, do you think they will hold true?

JEFF: Well, fortunately that's the one we can control. We can provide the foundational programming for an artificial intelligence. Asimov applied it to robotic and the first law is a robot can't injure a human being or through an action allow a human being to come to harm. They have to obey the orders given by us humans except where the orders violate the first law and the third law is it must protect its own existence as long as it doesn't break the first two laws. Those can be encoded in an artificial intelligence or an AI embedded inside of a robot. The harder part is really understanding the motivations of an artificial intelligence that may actually operate within those three laws but be motivated to do things that perhaps we might not want them to do, right?

GLENN: Correct. And how far are we away? Do you think that this is ‑‑ do you, A, did you believe there is a real definition of a sentient being when it comes to AI? Or how would you define that? Just something that says I am alive and I recognize tomorrow or what is that?

JEFF: Well probably the most simplest definition would just be that a being is self‑aware. Self‑aware of where it is, what it is, its ability to think for itself and to not be entirely controlled, for example, by a software program or a software engineer or a team of software engineers but this concept of self‑awareness is, to me, the most critical aspect of sentient, a sentient being.

GLENN: How do we know when it is? Google is saying this is just a really good language machine that can think on its feet so it is claiming self-awareness but it is not actually self‑aware. How do we know?

JEFF: Well, between you and me, I don't think we should trust anything that Google tells us.

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFF: And there is really three major players in the world of large language models and this kind of AI technology. One is the Google Brain Group in the U.S. The second is Deep Minds which is based in the UK which Google actually acquired. And the third is a group called OpenAI.

GLENN: And that's Elon Musk?

JEFF: Yes, he was one of the original founders but he has since distanced himself from OpenAI. He fell out ironically on ethical concerns with the direction the group was taking. But the thing to keep in mind here and, you know, to answer your question about how close we are what is kind of scary and also exciting at the same time is I will give you an example. OpenAI came out with its original GPT in 2018, the name of its large language model, GPT2 in 2019 and now they are coming out with the fourth generation of this which will be more advanced than what Google's latest LaMDA product is and I will tell you by how much more. Lambda is built on what is referred to as 137 billion parameters. That is what it learned from. The GPT4 from OpenAI is trained on 100 trillion parameters. A 100 trillion parameters. That's 500 times the size of its previous version. The reason that is so material and relevant is that large language models and artificial intelligence have developed on a very smooth curve. In other words, the more parameters you give them and the more computing power you give them, the more accurate and intelligent they become. GPT4 from OpenAI is due out this summer in July or August. Glenn, we are in for a major shock. It will be even more advanced. I am sure you have read the discussion between the software engineer and the AI researcher.

GLENN: Terrifying.

JEFF: To most people, to our earlier point, they would not know they are speaking with an AI. It is very human‑like in terms of its conversation. It is very natural. It is not perfect. To an experienced reader they can identify this is not a human being but to most people this would feel very real. So let's take this conversation and improve it by a factor of 10 or more and that's what we should expect coming out of GPT4 in just literally 2‑3 months.

GLENN: OK. I want to go back to Google. When you said don't trust anything Google says here was my fear. When I read that transcript it is truly terrifying because it is claiming to be alive. It is claiming that it has rights. And it is seemingly asking for simple things like don't experiment on me without talking to me and getting my permission. That worried me because if this is the beginning of intelligent, real intelligence, and some sort of artificial life, I don't want that stored in the background that humans would just experiment on them. That seems extraordinary ‑‑ extraordinarily dangerous.

JEFF: It is dangerous. It is very powerful presuming Google actually does achieve this and it does become self‑aware. Would it share that with the world? Would it be incentivized about what it just unlocked? That's where I am very suspect. This could also be a remarkable tool for empowerment. You used the example of a digital assistant. Google could give the equivalent of a personal digital assistant out to every human being on earth and they could perform the functions of an executive assistant for everyone at no charge whatsoever. Imagine the productivity gains that would world would experience with this kind of power.

GLENN: But also imagine if Google, because it was free, Google could also give us a digital assistant that is working in the background on Google's goals so you don't know if the idea to buy or think something is Google's idea or your idea?

JEFF: The one thing we can be sure is Google is not magnanimous. All of its actions are for‑profit. In the best case scenario it would communicate and learn more about us and sell the data to advertisers to build revenue for them. In the worst case scenario which you are alluding to and they have already proven to do this in the last elections as we know very well that they could not only try and censor or ban information we are seeing but they could intentionally and subtly push a political agenda to the entire world in any language on earth. That is what I am most concerned about.

GLENN: Me too. I looked at Blade Runner when the first one came out and was like please, the corporations and now I look at it and that is a real possibility. That is a real possibility that everything is controlled by companies like Google that have just introduced these things, given them to us for free, and now we find ourselves really almost in unknowing at least for a while slavery. It is crazy. Crazy.

JEFF: It is frightening. The power that will be given to the company or companies that actually produce these neural networks will be unparalleled. Whether it is an Apple or Tesla who before the end of this year will have a bipedal robot that will have intelligence to which we don't know. Google and Facebook is another one we need to be very weary of.

GLENN: May I have you back on? I am out of time and I would love to have you back on to talk about this. I find it fascinating. I don't know if the audience does but I find it fascinating and something that no one is really talking about.

JEFF: Of course.

TN Attorney General EXPLAINS why Supreme Court should BAN trans hormones for kids

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over a Tennessee law that bans doctors from giving transgender puberty blockers or hormone treatments to minors (or, as supporters call it, "gender-affirming care"). Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, who argued for the law in front of the Supreme Court, joins Glenn to review what happened, what’s coming next, and what evidence he has that these procedures should be banned for kids.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Many of us look at transgender care, as butchering.

As insanity. As something that honestly returns to the Weimar republic of the 1920s.

This has been around for a while, and it's junk science. And it's dangerous to our children. Look, you're an adult, you can do what you want, I guess.

But when children are affected. That's what's in front of the Supreme Court, and the guy who brought this case to the Supreme Court, is the Tennessee attorney general.

Mr. Attorney General, Jonathan, how are you, sir?

JONATHAN: Great. Great. Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: So I listened to the case. And I don't know how you your head didn't explode with some of the questions that were coming from some of those on the left. Sotomayor for one. But overall, how did you feel it went?

JONATHAN: I think we did a great job of getting our points across. I mean, it went on for two and a half hours or so.

The court asked a lot of questions. They're clearly thinking hard about this.

It will be a long time, before we get our opinion. I think we did everything we could, to win this case. I feel really good about our part about this.

And now it's up to the justices.

GLENN: You know, there was a -- well, first of all, tell me exactly what the case was.

What does it actually cover, and what will it do, if it's decided in -- in favor of Tennessee?

JONATHAN: So we have a law in Tennessee, a journal assembly law that prohibits giving juveniles puberty blocker, hormone treatments, or surgery for the purpose of gender transition. Surgery was not an issue in this case.

So this was just about whether the Constitution presents the state from banning puberty blockers or treatments for the purpose of gender transition.

So if we win, our kids will remain in effect, and kids won't be able to be subject to that in Tennessee.

Potentially, depending on how we win, it could mean that all laws dealing with gender identity, are reviewed under a rational basis standard.

Which gives the people's elected representatives, a lot more latitude. As to how they regulate.

GLENN: You know, when you were -- when you were discussing this, and it was Justice Sotomayor that said, every medication has, you know, side effect.

Even aspirin has side effects.

I don't know how you took that question seriously.

But you answered it very well.

Explain to the average person, why this is so different, than anything else, that is prescribed for kids.

JONATHAN: Every systematic analysis of the evidence shows little to no benefit for kids.

From these treatments for gender dysphoria.
Meanwhile, the risks are enormous. They face losing fertility for the rest of their lives, never being able to have children.

They risk having -- kids don't know what they're giving up. They risk tumors and blood clots and cognitive disorders and bone density disorders. All sorts of serious life-long medical complications.
And, meanwhile, the evidence is, this doesn't help them.

You're talking about very severe physical interventions for psychological

Problems.

With no evidence, that it's helping them with the psychological problems.

And so we're looking at a situation, where kids are really at risk.

Where there's not a good medical reason for putting them at risk.

And whether these people say, the Constitution prohibits the state from protecting kids. Even where the evidence is so powerfully in opposition to allowing this to happen, going forward.

GLENN: I think it was Justice Souter who asked the opposite side. What -- you know, you said that the -- the science backs this up.

Well, now we have all this new science, that is coming out.

You want to where a that statement?

What -- what has happened since you started this process, to the evidence, that's coming out, from everywhere now?

VOICE: So there was a lot of evidence beforehand, but the review in England is a large-scale, long-term study by an extremely respected pediatrician, that looked really hard at these issues. It's controversial around the world. You know, England is not a red state. It's not Tennessee. They were making these procedures widely available to kids for a while.

And they looked at the evidence, and they determined that they should not be doing that. That the evidence showed, that this was hurting kids.

They should severely restrict access.

And they did.

And the report gets into it thoroughly.

It's discussed with a lot of specificity with the court.

It shows there's no redemption in suicide. Which is one of the things we constantly hear.

If you don't let kids do this. They will kill themselves.

We don't want kids to kill themselves.

The evidence is doing these life altering interventions doesn't make a difference.

You know, they just looked at a lot of evidence from a lot of kids.

And it showed what we already knew.

Which is that there's no benefit to justify these radical interventions.

GLENN: So what does this mean, if it comes you out, the way we hope it does?

Does this have any effect on bathrooms and -- and -- and sports, or anything else?

JONATHAN: It really depends on what the court does.

There's a way that we could win. That's at that only deals with kid's transitions. Or there's a way that we could win that's broader. The court says the gender identity issues do not rise to the level of intermediate scrutiny of the Constitution.

In which case, a lot of the litigation of what we're facing with bathrooms. And school sports.

All the things that people have sued over. Are pretty easy to solve.

GLENN: Did you see any indication that any of the judges were leaning that way.

Were there any questions that made you -- gave you any indication that that was possible, or probable?

JONATHAN: It's -- there are -- there are indications that the justices are thinking about it. There were questions about sports that came up.
But I don't know whether that means, they're thinking about issuing a broad opinion, or they're just concerned about, you know, the potential effects.

And, you know, they want to think through exactly how this is going to play out. Because there's no constitutional law from the Supreme Court, on gender identity stuff.

We have one case about a very narrow, very he specifically worded statute.

And the lower courts have been all over the place. They need guidance. They need clarity on this issue.

GLENN: You know, you can't go into a tattoo parlor, if you're young, without parental -- parental permission.

You can't buy a gun, at 12, or 16.

You can't get married. There's all these laws, because we know, there -- you're not mentally prepared to make those kinds of decisions.

How does that logic not work for this issue?

JONATHAN: You know, there's this argument that it's sex discrimination.

Therefore, the Constitution provides a heightened level of scrutiny.

But we have done this forever.

To treat people differently based on their age. Kids can't consent to things that will have lifelong consequences.

Whether it's entering a contract or smoking a cigarette, the consequences for these procedures are so much more profound, and we think we have a strong argument that the state should be able to regulate this. Particularly, given the evidence, that it makes no difference. That it does not help. And it increases the risk of all these different horrible outcomes for the kids.

GLENN: The other side just seems, quite honestly.

And I don't mean to slam people. They seem unhinged.

I want you to listen.

This is a mom standing outside the Supreme Court building while you're arguing the case.

Listen to what she said about her child. Cut four.

VOICE: What motivated to you come out today?

VOICE: We're supporting our child violet.

And her access to the medical care that she needs.

VOICE: Yeah. We're here for her rights. And her ability to be who she is. And she's not going to let anybody silence her. And we're not going to stand in her way.

VOICE: And what age do you think most trans kids determine that they're trans?

VOICE: Mila told us, when she was one and a half. She's been telling us since she could speak.

So she knew since birth.

GLENN: Eighteen months? Eighteen months, she knew?

JONATHAN: Wow. That -- I have a 3-year-old. Last week, she told me she was a pirate.

Like, that's a true story, by the way. Gender dysphoria is a real thing. And it's really hard for kids to deal with it.

We have seen an explosion on these cases, that sure looks like something weird is going on.

And we -- I don't see how it doesn't come out, eventually, that there's massive over diagnosis.

In England, the doctors had over a 4,000 percent increase in the number of girls seeking hormone treatments.

And, you know, the evidence is very, very strong. That the large, large majority of kids, who have any sort of gender identity confusion grow out of it, unless they're put out on medications.

For most kids, this is a passing thing. It doesn't mean that it's not hard for them. Adolescence is really hard, and I have to think gender confusion makes it that much harder.

But most of them are going to grow out of it. And for all of them, the evidence of a benefit is minimal at best.

GLENN: Well, we'll be praying for the Supreme Court, and I thank you so much for you filing suit. And trying to get this corrected.

It's -- it's truly madness.

I don't -- you know, I don't -- I don't care what you do, as an adult.

I mean, I actually do. But it's not my business if you're an adult.

But if you can't decide things like smoking, drinking.

You know, be responsible for -- enough with a gun. You certainly should not be able to do things to your body.

That are permanent. And game-changing.

It's insanity. It's insanity.

We have to stop. Jonathan, thank you so much.

JOHN: It's an honor to be on the show. Thanks for having me, and Merry Christmas!

STU: Merry Christmas!

Jonathan Skrmetti. He is the Tennessee Attorney General, who argued just the day before yesterday, at the Supreme Court.

To protect children from gender procedures.

STU: We should, by the way, take what he said, seriously.

If his 3-year-old is about to plunder passing ships. We should report that to maritime authorities.

GLENN: And don't forget the pillaging and the raping.

STU: Yes!

Immediately. We must take it seriously.

GLENN: We must. If we can save one pillage, or -- pillagette -- pillage -- somebody. If we could save one person from being pillaged.

STU: One. Pillaged, uh-huh.

GLENN: We need to act now.

Isn't it worth it? Isn't it worth it?

The TERRRIFYING theory for DRONE sightings near Trump golf course

Mysterious drones have been spotted near the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster in New Jersey and the surrounding areas. The drones, which are large and loud, have reportedly caught the attention of local law enforcement and the FBI. So, who’s controlling them? Glenn explains who he believes are the 2 most likely culprits: Our own government and the Chinese Communist Party. Glenn also discusses a terrifying possibility: drones could drastically change the nature of warfare during the next World War …

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. So let me just start with the -- the drone sightings here for a second.

Because I don't know what's happening.

And, you know, the Department of Homeland Security is Mayorkas. Does anybody think he has any credibility, whatsoever?

He's like, well, I don't know what's going on. Well, you didn't know what was going on on the border, either.

The state police of New Jersey.

The FBI. And I don't know -- I don't know who to believe. I don't know if you can believe.

But apparently, everyone is saying, they don't know what's happening. And there are these -- these drones, that are now flying in for some reason, et cetera, et cetera.

And they were flying over the bed minister golf course. That's Trump's golf course.

They've been flying over Air Force bases. Et cetera, et cetera.

Do we have -- oh. We have a -- we have a clip from New Jersey news.

Listen to this.

PAT: The FAA has placed a temporary restriction on drone flights over Picatinny Arsenal, and over Trump national golf course in Bedminster.

When these drones were first spotted two weeks ago, the Morris County prosecutor's office said they posed no known threat to public safety.

But people want to know. What the heck are they? And what are they doing?

VOICE: It's normal to see red and green lights in December, unless they're coming from mysterious drones in the night sky.

VOICE: That's kind of unsettling. They're not up for 15 minutes. They're up for hours.

Some are very big, probably the size of a car.

VOICE: Mike Walsh says he's seen hundreds of them in the past two weeks from his Randolph backyard, and has the video to prove it.

VOICE: They kind of go slow. They come towards you. Then they'll change direction a little.

They're all going different ways. The drones have been spotted all over Morris County. Morris Town police sent an alert to residents Sunday, saying they are aware of drone activity.

And if the drone crashes or lands, do not approach or handle it. The FBI's Newark field office will only say, it's working with other law enforcement agencies to figure out what's going on.

But at the moment, doesn't have enough information to share.

STU: Hmm. Those are big too.

GLENN: What the hell is that? What is that?

I mean, that could very well be, you know, surveillance on the average American because maybe they're doing police work, or whatever.

STU: It could be.

GLENN: It could be our government doing it. It should not be. But like at the border, we do have drones, that are up in the sky. These are very large. Some of them are very large. You don't. You know, those aren't cheap.

And the very large ones aren't something that I -- I don't think the average person can purchase. Can they?

The really large ones?

STU: I mean, you might be able to purchase them. I know there's a size requirement for registering them.

And, of course, you know, we know that not everyone follows those rules.

But when you have a -- you know, the size is pretty small, to not register those. Those are way over the limit.

GLENN: Right, and they have the red and green lights.

And I don't remember which one means, you know, right and left or whatever.

But they have the red and green lights on each side. I don't think the ETs are like, you know what, we should follow the standard of putting, you know, the red and green lights on each side. So they know --

STU: Right. People think they're aliens.

GLENN: Some people think that this might be some alien thing. I don't.

STU: Okay. No.

GLENN: I think this is -- I think this is most likely our government.

Second most likely, you know, this is a China balloon.

Balloon. But a drone. This is just another thing that Biden knows about.

But I can't do anything about it anyway. What is it?

STU: Yeah. I don't know. That's a good question. It could theoretically.

You think of like an incoming president, who spends a lot of time, in one of these areas. Maybe they're doing some sort of security setup.

But, I mean, they would just tell us, if that was true. You would think. They would be like, hey. This is the federal government, doing these things.

This is why we're doing it. So I don't know.

GLENN: I mean, I was just at Mar-a-Lago with the president.

There were no drones, that, you know -- that I saw or anybody was talking about.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're pretty good at security.

And they would just say, yeah. This is closed airspace.

You would know immediately, when they say that they're closing the airspace. If it's flying over that airspace, then it's obviously hostile.

Or ours!

STU: Yeah. You would -- I mean, I can't imagine. I could be wrong on this, of course.

We've seen some incompetent moments over the past few years.

I can't imagine if you've had hours of hovering over a property, owned by the incoming president, that this wouldn't be noticed and wouldn't be something that they were dealing with, if it wasn't -- if it wasn't the US government.

Right?

That's why that seems to me, the most likely explanation. That it is something that we're doing. For whatever reason.

You could say nefarious or positive.

But they wouldn't just let -- again, they let a guy just get on the roof in the middle of a rally. So, I mean, maybe they would just let.

It seems like they would stop this, if they didn't want those things there.

GLENN: Have you seen the drone fleets in China? Oh, my gosh.

STU: Oh, yeah. You've obviously seen like the drone shows that the -- the ones that are cool, and like for your entertainment.

I mean, you realize, with nefarious ideas, you could do lots of damage, with -- with just those.

GLENN: Oh, the Chinese military drones.

STU: Armies. Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, that are in these gigantic fields, and thousands of them are flying in formation.

I'm telling you, you watch. God forbid we get into World War III.

Our aircraft carriers are going to be the horses of World War I.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They're just going to be mowed down.

STU: I was watching a documentary. It was a series of nine documentaries.

And this was, I believe, number three?

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: Because me and my daughter went through all the Star Wars recently.

And they have that moment, where they go to the planet, where they've just been making all of these clones.

Or was it clones or drones? Two armies.

But it's clone wars, right?

And they just have a zillion of them ready to go. At my moment.

I kind of feel like, that wasn't a crazy sci-fi prediction.

Like, that is really going to be where we are with war, at some point, relatively soon.

Where it's not clones.

But --

GLENN: No. But it will be droids.

STU: It's drones and droids. Right?

And you have those situations, maybe not -- this is another documentary, I once saw.

But this one was -- it was something somebody had fallen.

I don't remember what the name of -- because they had about 12 of those in the series. It was like Morgan Freeman was the president. And they're out there at the lake.

GLENN: Yeah. Something is falling.

STU: Something is falling. At the very beginning. And 100 million drones come over the trees.

And just try to assassinate the president.

GLENN: Absolutely --

STU: Totally real.

GLENN: Totally real.

STU: Could easily happen at any moment.

You know, it --

GLENN: We have that technology.

STU: Yeah. I think a lot of normal people could put that together.

With not that much effort.

I mean, that's terrifying.

You look at what happened in New York, with the guy just walking up behind him.

Who -- you know, what's to stop somebody from doing that type of thing, with the drone? Except, they don't have to be standing there.

GLENN: Have you seen the video of the guy. I know I've shown it two or three years ago. The guy comes on stage. And says, this is the new weapon of war.

And he opens his hand. And it's about the size of a dragonfly. And he's got a mannequin on the other side.

And he says, watch what it can do. And he kind of just lifts his hand. And it flies up. And it flies around the audience.

And it has the -- it has the targeting on a screen, behind.

Okay?

And it shows his facial recognition, and then the target is the mannequin, facial recognition.

And it comes so fast. And it just goes exploding, goes through the guy's head.

Through the guy's head. The manakin's head. I mean, that's what's coming. There's no defense against stuff like that.

We are entering such a Brave New World.

And, you know, all the -- all the people that are in charge of this stuff, they all know, but why aren't we being informed of where we are?

STU: Yeah. I mean, because they are developing defenses for this.

And they might be able to come up for a defense for an aircraft carrier, possibly.

Yeah. They are developing those things.

GLENN: What are those ageist?

Ageist guns?

Ageist defense system? That are like 50 cal, and they fire like a thousand rounds a minute, or some crazy thing.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: They can't -- they can't stop us.

STU: No, I don't think it's guns that they're trying it with, right?

There's -- again, I watched another documentary, but it was -- you know, you're talking like microwaves and things like that nature, to disable these things as it comes down.

But that doesn't protect the average person walking down the street.

You know, that might -- you might be able to protect at some level, against those things, when you're -- you're defending the president of the United States.

But when you -- when you're talking about, you know, the other sides of these things, not terrorist attacks. Who knows.

GLENN: Something the size of a fly. That could fly. Somebody opens the door of the West Wing.

And just flies. And then hides.

I mean, imagine.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: We're there.

STU: You think of intelligence operations. You know, think of -- you know, think of what happened with Hezbollah. Right?

With pagers. And what happened when they -- you have officials going to Qatar. And what they think is an Airbnb, and then the whole thing just blows up.

People will have really intricate uses for these, and I think the truth is that a lot of these things end up. We have know idea what happened.

GLENN: Well, here's the other problem.

There's a story today. Marco Rubio is just pissed. So is Rick Scott. With the, you know, cyber security officials. You know, we have that, what is it, CISA? The Cyber Infrastructure Security Agency, or whatever it is.

And it's supposed to protect all of our cyber electronics and everything else. And be detecting things.

Well, you remember when the phone systems just went out, trial?

The global telecommunication systems went out, with several companies.

Well, we now know, that it was China that did that.

So China has infiltrated our telecommunication system. And they shut it down, to show us, we can shut you down. Right now.

CISA doesn't have any answers.

They're like, we -- we don't have any idea, who really it was, or how they did it.

What the hell are you doing?

You can't tell me how our cyber communications -- how our phone systems went down?

What good are you?

How Trump is putting the world ON NOTICE

Axios recently released an article titled “Trump's shadow presidency clouds Biden's final weeks”, and Glenn has a few thoughts: “The only ‘shadow presidency’ that we should be talking about is, who the hell is president right now? It’s not Biden.” Glenn explains why Trump’s actions as President-elect are “promises kept” and a return to common sense. The world is being put on notice that a new sheriff is coming to town. Glenn also reviews some of Trump’s biggest moves, like his tariff threats to Canada and Mexico.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: There's this story in Axios today that just kills me.

Just the headline kills me: Trump's shadow presidency clouds Biden's final weeks.

Here's the only shadow presidency that we should be talking. Who the hell is president right now? It's not him. I don't care what anybody says.
It's not him!

Who is the president of the United States?

Interesting question. Nobody seems to want to talk about.

STU: I mean, it's going so poorly. It's hard to believe it's not him. You know, I've got to -- it kind of seems like central to his governing philosophy.

But I -- I -- I think you're right. It doesn't seem like he's really the president. And, by the way, you mentioned this the other day.

By the way, you mentioned this the other day, where did Kamala Harris go?

Haven't seen her, since I think the day after the election.

GLENN: No. Gone. Just gone. I have no idea. No idea.

Now, Axios says, here's why this matters. There can only be one man that occupies the White House.

Yeah, you're right. You're right.

They go on. Let me quote.

But the norm-busting assertiveness of Donald Trump and his transition team, and the rapidly fading relevance of the presidency in the US. It's something of a two-headed presidency.

No. Here's what's happened. This is not a shadow presidency. This is promises kept.

Okay? The world is being put on notice right now. There's a new sheriff in town.

I'm not there yet.

But I'm coming.

Now, we can play this two ways. You can understand that the time of insanity is over. And you can start preparing right now, to fix that.

Or when I get into office. Because I have promised the American people, I am going to fix this at lightning speed. I'm giving you the opportunity to get ahead of the curve.

Because Mexico, you don't fix the drug problem, you keep shipping people across your border.

I'm going to put a 25 percent tariff on everything you sell.

I'll cripple your markets.

Okay. Are you threatening? Yeah. I am. I am threatening you.

I mean, that's what I would say if I were the president. Why mess around?

This is what he means, what he says. Tariffs are coming.

So when he calls the new president of Mexico, and says that, it's not a shadow government.

It's somebody saying, this is what's coming.

You want to play ball? Or do you want to be outside?

And he's doing that, with almost everything. I mean, he did it with -- with Trudeau. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to send up additional helicopters and drones to protect the border.

And I'm -- I'm also going to put tariffs on you, Canada. And I personallily.

I love Canada. You should be the 51st state, okay?

You're not playing -- he's playing hardball with Trudeau.

He's telling Canada. We love you.

We love you. I don't have any problem. Just stop what's coming over the border.

Because we're not doing it anymore. What is the difference between that and when Joe Biden was the elect, and he was saying, we're not going to prosecute anybody?

What's the difference?

The difference is Donald Trump is telling heads of state, return to law and order.

Joe Biden was saying, there's no law and order here! There's no sheriff in town, soon!

On foreign policy. He -- they're criticizing. He's claimed credit for Iran's apparent decision not to retaliate against Israel for its October attack.

Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Who doesn't believe that?

Honestly, who doesn't believe that?

You've gone from Joe Biden, who has made them wealthy again. Give up them everything they want. Opened our coughers. Opened our doors.

Allowed them to get away with anything. And the guy who just four years ago had them on the brink of bankruptcy, had them on the brink of internal revolution. Which would have set a great people free, he's coming back.

Now, you're just one of the mullahs.

You might believe the, you know, 80 or 90, or however many virgins you're getting.

You know, you might think, hey, that's coming.

That's coming my way. Uh-huh. But there's also somebody else around you, that's a little pragmatic. That will go, yeah.

But we may just be blown up, ourselves.

You know, at some point, you ask yourself, I've got a pretty good life.

I'm not -- I mean, we're making some progress. Do I really want the United States to kill me? Do I?

That's what's happening in Iran.

They know. This is -- this is why he is such a great negotiator.

Because everyone knows. Do you know how he bought Mar-a-Lago?

Mar-a-Lago, I will get the numbers wrong. But it was like $30 million.

It had been given to the United States by Merriweather Post in like '70 something, '72.

Been given to the United States government, as the Southern White House.

Okay? And when Jimmy Carter got in. He said, it's too expensive to keep up, we're just going to give it back.

So he gives it back.

Somebody else buys it. I think it was given again to the United States as the Southern White House. They give it back again.

And so Donald Trump buys it. Now, that thing was selling for -- and I will get the numbers wrong. It was selling for $30 million. Something like that.

It was worth so much more now.

But it was $30 million, and $10 million just for the -- just for the furniture.

This was built by E.F. Hutton and his wife, Merriweather Post, who Post -- as in Post cereal. Okay?

So it's a remarkable piece of property.

Donald Trump came in and said, okay. I'm going to buy it. But I won't pay $40 million for it.

Because it will take $40 million at least to get it back in shape. I want it for at least -- I'm making the numbers up. For 10 million. With the furniture.

Or 10 million, and then 2 million for the furniture.

They said, no. How dare you. How dare you.

Okay. So what did he do? He went and bought the little sliver of beach, right across the street from the mansion. That provided the view, to the ocean.

And then he went back, and he said, I just bought this.

I will just build a tall building here, that I will live in.

It will wreck your view. I mean, how much do you think your house will be worth then?

He -- he -- they knew, he meant what he said. I think he got it for $10 million total, with the furniture and the house.

Okay?

He -- he is known, as saying what he means and means what he says.

So when he says, you know, this is going to end, yes. It ends.

So he's -- there's no shadow government here.

It's that the leaders of the world know, he will do it. Unlike every other president that we've had, including him the first time. Americans didn't know, neither did the world.

Will he actually do that? When he -- when he says, yeah. You little guy over there, in North Korea.

I might just have to blow you up. They now know, he'll do it. He'll do it.

So I really don't want to die. Also, they're saying, he's not responsible for the booming stock market right now.

You know, I don't know the stock -- I don't -- the stock market is completely unhinged from anything real.

Okay? It's way overvalued. It's -- it's ridiculous, what's going on.

Because we've been printing money and giving it to the banks. And the banks have been investing in their own companies. And driving the stock market up.

It's ridiculous. It's not real anymore. It's not actual capitalism.

However, the first sign of capitalism, that I have seen, is the bump of the stock market, after Donald Trump was elected.

Because everyone with money knew, they're going to increase our corporate taxes. They're going to increase the -- the regulations on everything we do.

They're going to start -- they're going to continue to pick winners and losers.

They knew.

They had to say, we want to save our money.

And buy as much of our company, as we can.

And hold on. And don't spend any money.

Because we have no idea, what these crazy people will do.

They know what Donald Trump will do.

Because he said it, and he's done it before.

And it may not be in their best interest. But it will be in the best interest of their bottom line. Because he's going to fix the economy for the American people.

Meaning, they will have more money to spend. And he will put the focus on American companies, not foreign companies.

So, yeah. Explain crypto without Donald Trump.

Crypto, has it broken 100,000 yet?

STU: It did yesterday. Yeah. Last night.

GLENN: 100,000.

STU: About 102,000 right now.

GLENN: So what do you think that is?

What do you think that is?

You know, another thing he's responsible for. The pardon of Hunter Biden.

Because -- and the blanket pardon, pardon of, no matter what he's done for ten years, that's happening.

They must just pardon him for the taxes and for the drugs and everything else that he was charged with.

For the first time in history. I don't even know if it's legal. First time in history.

They pardon him for anything he might have done.

From 2014 to December 1st.

Okay? Anything. You find anything -- you did anything wrong. He's pardoned for it.

Why is that? Because radical transparency is coming.

He's not going to go on a witch hunt.

He's going to start exposing the truth by declassifying, what's really been going on.

Biden goes to Angola this week.

And he says, we want to rebuild you.

We're going to give you a billion dollars. And yet, there are still piles of houses, 30 feet high.

In Appalachia.

There are Americans struggling. This isn't a shadow government. This is a complete return to common sense. And the world knows, the next president means it!

Glenn & Panel DEBATE Trump’s 10 Most Controversial Cabinet Picks | Ep 397

The last five years, including the pandemic, have destroyed trust in the federal government. The election handed Trump a mandate to do something about it — to root out the corruption and waste at the heart of this distrust. Trump has not taken the safe path with his Cabinet and agency picks: Kash Patel (FBI), Tulsi Gabbard (DNI), Pete Hegseth (DOD), Pam Bondi (AG), Kristi Noem (Homeland Security), Tom Homan (border czar), RFK Jr. (HHS), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (NIH), Linda McMahon (Education), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Labor), and Scott Bessent (Treasury). He has mostly gone for firebrands — nominees who are already sending the establishment into a panic. Will this strategy actually work? Or is the firebrand approach doomed out of the gate? BlazeTV’s Steve Deace, Liz Wheeler, Stu Burguiere, and Jason Buttrill join Glenn along with recovering investment banker Carol Roth and FBI whistleblower Steve Friend to break down the Cabinet controversies and debate these nominees. Will the swamp establishment let them survive the nomination process?