RADIOMarch 05, 2025

Why Trump MUST PREPARE for AI to TRANSFORM Warfare

Artificial intelligence, especially once it hits ASI, will change the world as we know it, including warfare. So, why is the Pentagon investing so much in designing new weapons when AI will make everything obsolete in the blink of an eye? Glenn makes the case that there are smarter things for the Trump administration to invest in to prepare for the AI revolution that’s right around the corner.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Who creates jobs. What's happening with the economy. We will get into that here in a second. But Stu, when we went off the air here, in the commercial break, he was like, I don't know if I agree with you on what I'm saying is, freeze all of the big spending. Do not start any new airplane design at the Pentagon that is a ten-year contract. That most likely will be a waste of money!

Because AGI and ASI is coming! And that will change everything. It will change warfare. Just will!

Drones, five help you dollars each, have already changed warfare. We have to be preparing for the future. And that future is much more nimble, much smaller, and I have a feeling, much cheaper.

STU: Are you concerned about a bridge here, though? We don't know when this is coming, we don't know how it's going to develop. We don't know what it will look like. No one does.

So, you know, we still need the best planes while planes are important.

GLENN: Right. But you don't need to start any new. Fix what we have. You know, finish what you've got in production.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But you don't need to sit down and okay a new design for a new fighter jet.

STU: It's a big bet though. You are making a big bet on ASI and AGI with no backup plan. Why wouldn't you still want to have the best planes in your arsenal?

GLENN: I think, you know, look, let's look at it this way. Our generation's Manhattan project is AI, ASI.

Back with when FDR was convinced by Einstein. He didn't believe it could happen.

And Einstein came in and said, listen. I'm from Germany. They will do it! And so he convinced him. Go ahead. Build this bomb.

It was magical.

Nobody knew that we could even get there.

You know, we could split the Atom, but what does that mean? Can we actually make a bomb that can work? We put everything we had into it, and we continued to build planes and everything else. Because we were currently fighting a war. And we didn't know if that would happen. Up until the very last moment, when they said, dear God, what have we done?

Okay? This yen radiation, it's going to end the same way. In three to five years. Except, this time, we know it's going to happen. Almost everybody who was a naysayer on ASI, almost all of them are now saying, oh, dear God. Yes. It's coming. And it's coming much faster than we thought.

It will be here by 2030. Most likely, it will be here in the next three years. Now, if that time continues to collapse, I mean, just in the last five years, it's gone from 2050, maybe.

To now 2028, 2029.

If that continues to collapse like that. We're -- we're at the event horizon of the singularity. So we know it's going to happen.

Our job is to just bridge the gap as much as possible. But don't build things that we don't know are -- here's what -- here's what our Pentagon should be doing right now.

Building nuclear power plants. Our army Corps of Engineers should be building those little teeny nuclear power plants. Build as many as they possibly can. You don't even to have start them up yet.

Just have them ready to go. So when the server farms are ready. When everything. When AI is there, we can power it.

We won't have the power to be able to have ASI think and affect. We have to start thinking towards the future. Not what's the next generation of fighter jet look like?

There ain't going to be one, attitude. There's just not. At least with a person in it.

STU: Right. Because it will still have -- I mean, AI will probably come up with something that flies.

GLENN: Yeah. It will be hypersonic. It might even be of a new material.

Here's what people don't understand.

ASI will look at the period okay table of elements. And say, guys, shuffle the deck this way. And you have a material that will go 900 miles an hour. It will hold up under the heat and the friction. It won't bend.

It's perfect!

And it's only a quarter of the weight!

And, by the way, here's the formula. And you don't to give and test it for two years. It's correct! Do it!

I mean, that's how fast things are going to happen, once they start happening. And, Stu, this scares the hell out of me. Because you know how I feel about AI.

STU: Yeah, I was going to ask you, because AI obviously has a lot of potential negative consequences. And if we're putting the government. The military in control of that. Does that scare you?

GLENN: No. I'm not saying that we put the government in control of it.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: We have to balance all of this. But the government is already involved in it.

I'm saying, let the government build like power plants. Build the things that we know the country is going need to, the infrastructure, to be able to handle this.

Build the things that we say, we've got it, we can turn it opposite

STU: Yeah. Get prepared for whatever is coming here. I think, I guess, I'm concerned. This is from a guy I have talked to for 20 years, who continually repeats the phrase. I'm always wrong about timing. I'm concerned about that bridge period.

Because I think you're probably coming. It is coming really, really fast. But if something happens. If something goes off course.

You don't know. We need to be prepared for that bridge period.

PAT: How do we spend 877 billion dollars every single year, every year, China spends 200 some billion dollars every year.

And it's that close? If it's that close, you know, we have other problems.

STU: You're just saying, we should sort of rest on our laurels a little bit and just say, hey, we already have the best technology. We already have the best military. Let's not try to develop new things until this AI thing comes.

GLENN: Right. They're developing new stuff as well. Great. Great.

Let's give some time to AI. Let's not double our work. Let's not spend money, now on things that most likely. Don't build another aircraft carrier. Don't design another F57. Tonight do it. It's not going to. You have no idea what's coming!

Fix the stuff we have.

Make sure we have the amnesty. Make sure we have the latest and the greatest, that's already here! Don't do R&D on that stuff.

Don't do it!

And, by the way, you can't tell me, that again, $900 billion overlet's say 250. Or let's say 300 for China.

Okay. We spend three times the amount every year. And we're not competitive?

I don't believe that. And if it is, everybody in the Pentagon should go to jail.

STU: I do think, we're certainly competitive.

GLENN: Of course, we are.

STU: To me, I think there's a lot of bolder projects. There's a bunch of crap in our military.

That tough is our higher priority target, let's put it that way. Then eliminating potential limitations in these fields.

Even though, I know what you're saying. They might be obsolete in a few years.

GLENN: And you will to have come in front of a committee, that is like filled with Elon Musks. And say, here's the pitch!

I don't want the decision to be made by the senators or the generals at this point.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Here's the pitch. Here's why we think this fits with tomorrow's technology.

STU: And they won't be in an adviser role. But we do have a system of government to follow.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. But they should be the ones saying, don't do that, Senator. Don't do that. That's stupid. If they want to do that. We'll vote them out.

We will all know which ones are doing it. Because they're funneling money to their friends.

STU: Part of this comes to the way I think about government spending. Government spending is always worse than the private sector.

GLENN: Huh.

STU: Which is a very basic conservative point. Right?

I think though, the one time, that you -- obviously, constitutionally, you have certain powers, the government spends.

Defense is one of them.

That they will typically be responsible for.

The way I look at it, is government can do some things relatively well.

If you don't care about efficiency. Businesses do. Right?

So they will -- they will not take certain risks, that, you know, have a low percentage chance of paying off.

And the idea that maybe you come up a nuclear bomb.

And you're able to stop global wars for multiple decades.

You know, a private company. You know, like -- very -- certainly, they shouldn't be coming with nuclear bombs. You know what I'm saying. That type of risk. That type of expenditure. That will likely fail. Is the type of thing that the government can take on.

Because when you don't care about efficiency. When you don't care about. Hey, we tried 25 things. Twenty-four of them failed. That's okay.

GLENN: Look. Private industry should be doing this, leading this. But the government is already in bed. DARPA is already doing this. The CIA is the one who helped fund the Silicon Valley in the 1960s. Please, let's get over our little illusion, that they're not involved in any of this.

Let me give you an example, on something the president I hope will talk about tonight: The private sector versus big government and Biden spending spree. What Trump is doing, and what Biden did.

The president has been in for 40 days. I've never seen anything like this, in 40 days.

So he's been in office for 40 days. And the numbers he's bringing into the economy, are staggering. Yesterday.

Taiwan, semi conductors. Which is the greatest news you could possibly hear, if you understand what this means. Taiwan makes all of the best semi conductors and super conductors. And they're dropping $100 billion to build chip factories here in America. Apple, 500 billion over four years, to crank up its manufacturing.

Think Texas server plants, not sweatshops.

SoftBank is in for 100 billion on AI. UAE is tossing 20 billion into data centers. That's $700 billion in private sector commitments. Now, some people are saying that it's as high as 1.7 trillion.

But I can't track those numbers, and get -- I can get a lot of rumors. A lot of, yeah, maybe.

But I don't have -- this is real. This is almost a trillion dollars. Remember, our -- the investment for Barack Obama, the reinvestment act. Was 787 billion. This is 720 billion. All coming, want from tax dollars. Not coming from government IOUs. But real money from companies all over the world. That are betting on America.

This number, like I said, can be verified. And they're not handouts.

Now, just the investment from TCMC, could mean 40,000 construction jobs.

And 6,000 high-tech gigs. Apple, thousands.

This is the private sector.

Not because Uncle Sam wrote a check. But because Trump demanded the same rules on tariffs, for everyone.

We're going to charge you, what you charge us!

That is fair on any playground, anywhere in the world!

And then he sweetened the deal by cutting the red tape and the tax advantages that no other country will offer. And said, build it here.

Bring those jobs here.

We're a stable country. We're the future.

DEBATE: Should AI Facial Recognition be Allowed in Court?

Is AI facial recognition software, like Clearview AI, reliable enough to be used as evidence in a court of law? Glenn, who is against Clearview, has a friendly debate with Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who wants to expand Clearview’s use in court cases. So, how do we balance the good that Clearview can do and the bad that it is capable of doing in the wrong hands (for instance, a totalitarian government)? AG Yost gives his thoughts and also previews how he hopes the Supreme Court will rule on this.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: I am thrilled to have the Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on with us. He served as the auditor of Ohio, for a long time. Like eight years.

And then he became attorney general. I think he's -- I think he won it with more votes than anybody else in the history of Ohio has. And he is defending and fighting for something called Clearview. Now, I like Dave.

But I'm against Clearview. And maybe he knows something that I don't know. So I want to have a conversation with him about what is happening in Ohio, and what's being heard now in the courts.

Dave, welcome to the program.

DAVE: It's good to hear your voice.

GLENN: Thank you, sir. By the way, thanks for everything you've done. You're really making a difference.

DAVE: You're very kind, thank you.

GLENN: Talk to me about the case now of Clearview. Which is an AI facial recognition, and it is a great tool for law enforcement. But it frightens me a great deal. Talk to me about the case.

DAVE: Sure. So let's -- let's start with the backs of crimes.

Fellows walking down the street. Minding his own business. Mind you, this guy has no criminal background. He's just -- he's a good guy.

Pays his taxes. Goes to work. He's walking down the street on February 14th, Valentine's Day. Day of love. And the bad guy, I'm not going to use his name comes up behind him, robs him on the street, shoots him twice in the back, and runs off. Now, surveillance cameras see him, that are just on the street. See him going into a particular apartment. Well, fast forward a week. Police doing their investigation, trying to figure out what happened.

And as a -- he goes to a convenience store, and the surveillance camera there, over at the cash register, picks up his face.

And he goes back, same kind of route, to the same apartment.

And so they go, hmm.

Wonder who lives there.

And they run the probation website, or the parole website from the Department of Corrections.

Lo and behold, then they run that guy against the -- excuse me, they grab a facial freeze frame, off of the convenience store footage, and run it through Clearview AI, and it's a match.

So they say, a-ha! They go in, and get a search warrant from the judge. During the search, they come up with the gun.

The murder weapon.

And so they arrest the guy. They've got a pretty good case at that point.

That guy goes to court and complains. And says, hey, that facial recognition tough is not reliable. They say right on there, that you can't rely on it.

And don't use it.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: And the judge tosses the results of the search. Which means, this guy is going to walk, if we don't have the murder weapon for evidence.

GLENN: Right. And he tosses that because the clear view evidence is what got you the warrant. So anything is fruit of a poison tree. Correct?

DAVE: Well, that's what the argument is.

GLENN: Right. Right. Right. Right.

DAVE: But the law says there's a long-standing, decades long good faith exception. And you're only supposed to use the fruit of the poisonous tree. If there's no other -- if there's bad faith. And there's no other option to do it.

There was no bad faith here.

And, in fact, there's other useful evidence, probative evidence, including seeing the guy go into that apartment, that is useful. And supporting probable cause for the search warrant.

GLENN: It also reminds me a little bit of the glove doesn't quit, you must acquit.

The use of DNA evidence during OJ Simpson. Everybody said the same thing. That's unreliable. We don't even know what that is. Could be one out of every 100 have the same kind of -- they made all kinds of crazy things.

And so that was tossed out. Because people didn't understand how accurate, that was. Pragmatism so I don't -- I don't disagree with you at all. This is a great thing to get the bad guys.

However, Clearview. What they have done, is they have scraped billions of images, without anybody's consent off of the internet.

And I believe it's very, very accurate. And the argument would be, well, I'm not doing anything bad or wrong. So I don't have to worry about it.

But I don't -- you know, in a time where we're headed for AI the way we are. And what's happening in China.

This is exactly the kind of technology that is used for governments to track everybody.

How do you balance that the crazy world that we live in, to make sure it doesn't become a tool like China?

DAVE: Well, you know, Glenn, I worry about that too. And I think that the solution is the regulation of the use of the thing.

For example, we do not permit here in Ohio, the use of -- of facial recognition, without anything more to support an arrest warrant. It can only be used as a lead.

Then you have to go out and do the shoe leather. To prove that the guy you think it is, is the guy you're looking for.

GLENN: Which is what you did.

You used that. And you didn't arrest him because we had the AI. You arrested him because you had that, got you a warrant, you got in, you found the gun. Right?

DAVE: Well, it was a search warrant that got us --

GLENN: Right. Right. What I mean is, what you're saying you wanted to be used like, is exactly what you did. You didn't go get the guy because he was on Clearview.

DAVE: Exactly right. And here's the rubric. I know you're a fact guy. But you love -- you love, how do we think about this?

We have public spaces everywhere. So a cop can stand on the corner and observe all day long.

Ask sit there for an eight-hour shift. And just watch. And anything he sees is fair game. They're allowed to react right there. And that's not improper surveillance. Because it's a public place.

When does it stop becoming a public place? Or proper?

When it becomes a private place. If it's your home. If it's in some circumstances, your business.

You have to have probable cause, get a somewhere to sign off on that. I think when we're talking about these technological things, the question is: What is the government allowed to do with it? And what -- and did it occur in public or in private?

When we're talking about Facebook, you know, I'm sorry. It's electronic. But that's kind of a public place.

That's more like the cop standing on the street corner. On the other hand, the cop standing outside.

We just had a Supreme Court case about this a couple years ago. A cop standing on the street, but using sensitive ultraviolet thermal imaging to look for marijuana grows. They're looking at what's going on inside your private residence. That means, that's a Fourth Amendment violation.

So I think that this principle of public versus private fears. Goes a long way, to helping us think through this.

GLENN: Yeah, they are.

So, Dave, I want you to know. I mean, I hope this hasn't felt like a hostile interview.

I want you to know. I'm a fan of yours. But I'm very, very concerned of this slippery. Almost straightdown slope to the cage that AI could build for people.

And we could have all of the best intentions. But it falls into the wrong hands.

You know, we lose several elections in a row.

And, you know, it could be -- it will be a prison. It will be a panopticon. Like it is, in China.

And so that's why I'm concerned about it.

So this is in front of the Supreme Court. Closing arguments haven't happened yet.

DAVE: Nope.

GLENN: How do you think this is -- the court will look at this. And what do you think will happen?

DAVE: Well, it's a case of first impression, right?

I mean, we haven't had a lot of cases, challenging the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, protecting our privacy, in our homes. And papers.

And this new technology. So we're arguing for a narrow reading of it.

But that it should be -- it should be an available tool.

GLENN: Right.

DAVE: To your point earlier, I couldn't agree with you more. It scares me, what government can do about this.

If you think about, back to the Biden administration. And social media ask what they were doing.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

DAVE: Multiple that. Make that geometrically larger. That's the potential. We've got to be vigilant.

GLENN: What is the difference between this, and, for instance, in Texas, you can't clock me speeding with a camera.

A cop has to be there, to stop me. And even they can take a picture of me, driving the car. Et cetera, et cetera.

They cannot ticket me for speeding. It has to be a physical police officer.

What is the difference between this, do you think?

DAVE: Well, and that's a great -- that's the same law we have in Ohio. And that's a great example of how the government can restrain technology. To prevent it from going too far.

That's not a constitutional issue. That's a statute that the general assembly passed. And said, we're not going to let you do this. Yes. You've got the technology. We're not going to let you do this. That's just too far.

GLENN: Okay. Dave, I mean, I appreciate that at least you and others are thinking deeply about this because we're on the verge of a whole Brave New World.

And I honestly don't know what the right answer is. I mean, the law -- you know, law-abiding citizen in me, is like the guy clearly -- you've got the gun in his house. He clearly did it.

But the person that is concerned about this new technology, and things like China.

I just don't know how to balance it yet. But I appreciate the conversation. Thank you so much.

DAVE: Thanks for having me on.

GLENN: You bet. That's Dave Yost. He's the Ohio Attorney General, and that is happening in Ohio right now.

Insights from Glenn Beck's Lee Harvey Oswald Shot Recreation

We still have plenty of questions after the JFK Files release. So, Glenn wanted to put one of them to the test: Could Lee Harvey Oswald have made the shots that assassinated Kennedy in the allotted time, as the Warren Commission said he did? Glenn recently put the theory to the test and tried to make the shots himself. The full recreation attempt will be available exclusively to BlazeTV subscribers on March 26, 2025. But first, Glenn gives a preview of the 2 incredible things he discovered ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Yeah. Well, I went up to Oklahoma this weekend.

To a friends house. Or a friends ranch.

He's got a shooting range. And we went up, because we were shooting something that is for Wednesday's special.

Last week, we shot what's his name?

Oswald's gun. The exact copy with the exact ammunition.

And the ammunition itself leads to you conspiracy theories like crazy.

I mean, the more -- the more we do things on this.

Like, we will just disprove that.

Then you're like. Eh.

I mean, one of them is the ammunition.

This gun is -- was for Greek fighters in World War II!

It's a really crappy gun. The -- the scope today, the same exact scope, if you can get it, very rare.

If you can get it. It is so crappy. That it's a 10-dollar scope, today. Okay?

Back then, it was -- and it's really -- this gun is -- has everything going against it. Okay?

And the ammunition, there wasn't ammunition for this gun. The CIA after the war said to the DOD, you've got to make a bunch of ammunition over to this gun. And send it over to Greece. Okay?

So it was all CIA-ordered ammunition. It didn't sell. It was there. So they shipped it back, later.

Now, how did Oswald get the ammunition that was -- was ordered by the CIA, brought back by the CIA, and the DOJ.

How did he -- we have those shells. They are $40 a piece. So we were using the shell.

We used absolutely everything. And last week, the gun jammed on us. Actually, the firing pin went out, and we couldn't get it fixed fast enough for what I did yesterday.

So I went out last week, and I shot.

And it was just stationery, at the exact stance. Can we -- can I hit those things, using this gun?

Yes. Then we decided, we have to do it though, moving. And the exact angles, and as high up to six stories as we can get.

So yesterday, I go to -- go to Oklahoma. To this great side by side ranch. Where, you know, it's for hunters.

And the guy who runs it, is a guy who is a Beretta sharpshooter, if you will. The kind of guy that he will go to gun shows and stuff.

He will throw up a quarter, and he will shoot a hole through the quarter. He's that kind of guy. Really good shot. And he said, this is difficult.

I'm like, eh, is it? And he's like, yes. Glenn. This is a difficult shot. We're going to be here all day. Let me just say, my day lasted -- I expected maybe 20 minutes. It was an eight-hour day to do this. Okay?

STU: Wow.

GLENN: So we take the shot. I don't want to reveal what we found. We found two things that I did not expect. I thought for sure it would go a certain way, and it didn't.

And then on top of that, he comes back, and he's -- because we had it in the back of a car.

Shoot through the back of the car.

And we did!

And so it was the same angle.

Absolutely everything.

And he comes out, after the shoot, and he said, I want you to look at this.

And he shows us something on the car.

And I said, wait a minute.

Wait. Explain this.

Because it seemed odd. Once he pointed it out. I said, wait a minute.

And he said, yeah. We started talking about it. The whole crew came around.

We're doing research today.

Because if the Warren commission did not talk about this. And they had to have.

STU: Right.

GLENN: If they didn't talk about this, it was -- because there's no way around it, and we'll show it to you on Wednesday's show.

It's fascinating!

It is absolutely fascinating.

STU: Sounds it!

GLENN: Yeah. It's really great.

STU: What was it like, going through the process of re-creating that?

GLENN: It was weird, because we had put balloons.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Where everybody was. And so we put balloons there.

And the idea of -- I could relate to him on nerves.

Because I was thinking, okay. So what other elements did he have to deal with? And the only one that I couldn't re-create is, I'm shooting the president.

And I'm probably going to walk away dead.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: So, you know, that's the only thing. That would slow you down. Make you a sloppier shot. Or anything else.

And we couldn't re-create that.

STU: That's a big one.

GLENN: Yeah. The other thing is, he was in a Lincoln continental. Even moving, it's 11 miles an hour.

That thing is not bouncing around. We had it in the back of a truck.

And the truck was being dragged through this field.

And it -- it kept losing -- you know, the field is bumpy.

STU: Not paved.

GLENN: Yeah. Not paved at all. Not even smooth.

So I think that kind of made up for him being was this. Because that -- that's what Scott was saying.

He was like, this is a difficult shot.

Because of that!

So I think we kind of balanced it out.

But it's really amazing.

We're doing a show from the Oval. Wednesday. And we have got -- we've got somebody on that has a tape. He's bringing it. Would not release it. To us. So he's coming in, and he's bringing the tape of a conversation that he says, two people talking about Johnson.

And Johnson's involvement.

We also have Roger Stone on the program.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Talking about that.

Because I also want to go in with Nixon.

And he's part of the Nixon thing. Because the more you find out about what our CIA was doing.

The things we'll show you on Wednesday, that we've now confirmed.

And we didn't even know we were looking for this.

But the things that came out of those JFK files now that we confirmed, shows that the CIA is absolutely out of control then, and it will make you question everything else that you know in history.
Was that real, or was that not real?

And so that's Wednesday night.

9 o'clock. Blaze TV.

Join me. BlazeTV.com/Glenn.

Just use the promo code Glenn, and you will save.

STU: Doesn't Roger Stone have a Nixon tattoo? So he was definitely -- he was there for that.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

STU: A big fan.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

But I don't know how I feel about Nixon thousand.

I mean, I know how I feel about Nixon.

I don't think he was a good guy.

I don't know how I feel about -- what I know said. My dad said, he's just like everybody else. He just got caught.

I think he's bare minimum.

Right about that.

It may have been, he's just like everybody else. But they set him up.

STU: Hmm. This is interesting. This is interesting. Because we have all these documents. And as usual, they've calmed no one, it seems.

GLENN: But this has only made it worse. I think. This has only made it worse. And we're trying to disprove things. When you see what happens in the field, I think you'll -- I think you'll really be surprised.

You'll really be surprised. At what we found. And what happened.

STU: That's interesting. I can't wait to see this. This is Wednesday night. On your normal show.

Your normal special.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: By the way, you can subscribe to Blaze TV. BlazeTV.com/Glenn. The promo code is Glenn. You can save 30 bucks off your subscription.

Nerdrotic Breaks Down Disney's Failed Snow White Remake

After years of controversy, Disney’s “Snow White” remake, starring Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot, is officially a flop. ‪@nerdrotic‬ joins Glenn Beck to discuss the many, many places Disney went wrong and why he’s “ecstatic at this failure.” The film, which was made at the height of the woke movement, now feels “dated” and is chock full of “communist propaganda.” The seven dwarves, he says, “are the stuff of nightmares.” And it’s clear that Disney “doesn’t know what a Disney Princess is anymore.” Nerdrotic also reviews some of the other shocking changes Disney made to the 1937 classic, including who they replaced the “prince” with and what became of those “7 magical creatures” that Disney reportedly wanted to replace the dwarves with.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: And I want to talk to you because you might be as happy as I am at the failure of Snow White.

And I wanted to talk to you about what you're seeing with Snow White.

GARY: I'm ecstatic at this failure. It's been two years, and it's been one of many now, predictable Disney failures.

And it -- it's really built up to a head and been hit with the cultural zeitgeist. And it's more than just a movie at this point. Because normally I wouldn't even watch a princess movie, but it became such a punching bag in the culture war, and a symbol.

And Rachel Ziegler has become the symbol of everything that's wrong with modern Hollywood right now. And seeing it just crumble, does my heart good.

Because the universe tends to unfold as it should, Glenn.

This is the balancing act. This was a movie that was made before the cultural shift. Or during it, actually.

And now it just feels dated. And the audience has spoken. They were -- honestly, Glenn, every trailer that hit YouTube was getting ratioed into oblivion.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

GARY: Yeah. So Disney was telling you exactly what this movie was going to be. And the audience was telling them exactly what they thought of it. And now unsurprisingly, it's flopping.

GLENN: So, you know, you say this was made at the height of it.

And I think this is also, this movie, her reaction, the way they did all of it. I think this is part of the undoing of that era, as well.

GARY: Absolutely, and we've seen that play out in the last year. If we want to even go back to the Acolyte, or go back before that with the Marvels. These were movies made with the mindset of identity politics, intersectional feminism, which really goes against what Hollywood has done for hundreds of years, or 100 years.

Hundreds of years, sorry.

Which is, you know, tell good stories that are authentic.

And a lot of that is either the hero's journey.

Or just the good old-fashioned fairytale with some romance.

And Hollywood doesn't know how to be good, anymore.

They are so -- they are so black pilled. They are so dystopian. They are so nihilistic at this point.

That when you see something that is just good, that it -- it disgusts them.

And now, they -- while they're trying to fix stuff, they don't even know how to do it. They don't know what a hero is. Disney doesn't know what a Disney princess is anymore, which is crazy.

GLENN: Yeah, you know, it's funny. When I was working at CNN.

Stu, do you remember this with Hal? He was a great writer. I was working at CNN.

And I don't remember, maybe the funeral of Ronald Reagan was happening, or there was -- something was happening, an anniversary. And I was going out West for a week of shows, and I said to Hal before I left, I said, hey, next week, this is coming up. Can you write a really good piece on Ronald Reagan and America? He said, sure. I get this piece of garbage back. I mean, it was like, come on.

And I call Hal up. And I said, Hal, you're a good writer. What the heck happened? He said, Glenn, I've tried. I worked harder on that than I've ever worked on anything. But I have to tell you, I hated Ronald Reagan.

He said, so I didn't -- I don't know what people like about Ronald Reagan. And I understood then, you know, you can't fake it.

You cannot write -- these guys in Hollywood, they cannot reflect, you know, the right direction. Because they don't -- they hate it. And they don't understand it!

GARY: No. And it reviles them. The whole concept of a male hero, in particular.

We've seen -- what happens is masculinity has been drained out of Hollywood.

And it turns out, they needed it. That's what it was built on.

Now, it doesn't mean -- and so is femininity.

Which, you know, Snow White is essentially feminism versus femininity. And sure, yes. It's made in 1937.

But it boggles my mind that Disney took the film that built their empire.

GLENN: Yes.

GARY: That is a paradigm shift movie. That is sacred text in Hollywood.

And just threw away the original script and gave us -- and I'm not kidding. Communist propaganda.

GLENN: Why do you say that?

GARY: In Snow White.

Oh. It's filled with it. Throughout -- you get it in the second or third line of the film. They're introducing Snow White's parents, which was new. It's not from the original.

And they somehow run a socialist kingdom, where they run everything, but everybody has to share everything and everybody has to share in the bounty. Right?

And then, instead of Snow White meeting a prince, they replace the prince with a thief. And her desire is not to find a good man. It's to lead.

So, of course, we want to give her a career over maybe a fulfilling life, and it really does feel like -- well, they did. They did massive reshoots during the strike. So they tried to fix some of it, so it's kind of half a fairytale and half -- as the BBC says, Glenn, a Marxist call to arms. Even the BBC calls it out for its Communist propaganda, which is saying something.

GLENN: Jeez. So somebody said -- here's my favorite line from a review: Rachel Ziegler only gave -- only became a princess, and looked like a princess in the same -- in the same way, she looked like a product of incest.

So... anyways. Anyway.

Stu is telling me. He read a review.

Somebody said, even the background. It just looks. Everything looks fake.

I would imagine, that's because, didn't they have to strip all of the other people out of it, to replace all of the not-dwarf-style people out? And replace them with animation?

GARY: I think the dwarves were going to be in it all along. I think they were going back and forth on -- because they initially were going to cast them, and then they didn't. And then they -- the Peter Dinklage controversy happened. And I think they thought a good compromise would be to make them CGI, which makes them look like demons. They're the stuff of nightmares, but the bandits were always going to be in there. But their roles were greatly reduced.

GLENN: Hang on just a -- Stu, didn't we see pictures of like this tall guy out in the woods?

GARY: Yeah, those were the bandits. They were going to be part of it. And instead of a prince, Jonathan leads the bandits. And the bandits are just there, because they feel like all the food should be shared. And the bounty of the land belongs to everybody, who tends to it.

And it's such a clash of messages, where it's, again -- it's supposed to be some kind of socialist utopia. But except Rachel Ziegler's snow white is the boss. So we're not going to question that.

GLENN: So did they leave the evil queen? Is she evil? Well, she has to be, because she's a Jew.

GARY: Yes. She is. And Gal Gadot. And bless her heart, she does her best. She's not a very good actress. And it turns out, she's not a very good singer either.

But she's pretty.

But yeah. And some of the most iconic scenes from the original, because I rewatched the original before I saw this -- are gone. They're missing the I Am wishing song. And Some Day My Prince Will Come song. And they turn them into songs about leading. And her end, sorry to spoil it for everybody. The witch falls off -- lightning strikes. Nah, and she falls off.

No. She just gets sucked into a mirror at the end.

They extended role. But that's not good. I would have reduced the role.

GLENN: But there is a magic mirror.

GARY: Yes.

GLENN: And does the magic mirror tell you, you can be pregnant if you're a boy?

GARY: No. But maybe that was left on the cutting room floor. But they definitely left out the description of Snow White, where they said "her skin is white as snow." They left that out. I wonder why.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Thank you so much, man. I just had to talk to you today. Because I knew you would just be joyful.

As I was.

I was actually a little disappointed in the numbers. I was hoping it would do worse.

GARY: It will. It will.

The international numbers. These films do better internationally.

And they're doing terrible. So this is not going to have the life they want. And it's going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. The budget was 215, before marketing.

GLENN: What happens to Ziegler?

GARY: Oh, she goes to Broadway. That would be my guess. Her movie career is over. They're never going to put her on a red carpet again. She has -- that has been the well-documented, worst PR disaster in Hollywood history without a doubt.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Gary, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

GARY: Thanks for having me on, Glenn. You bet.

GLENN: You bet. That's Gary Buechler. He's from Nerdrotic. If you follow him. Nerdrotic. Nerdrotics. @Nerdrotics on Twitter, if you want to follow him. He's got some good stuff over at YouTube, maybe you should check out.

I enjoy his disdain for Walt Disney and the Walt Disney studios, because it's new to me. And it's kind of fun.

It's kind of fun to see them just kind of crash and burn on this.

I guarantee you, it won't change anything.

And I couldn't know?

Just like the democratic party. They let the rebels inside.

They let the revolutionaries inside. Thinking that, okay. Well, it's -- you know, we can control it. We're Disney. We can control it.

No. And now you've lost complete control of the company.

Just like the Democrats have lost -- well, there's a good, regular old Democrats. They disagree with all of the -- no, no, you don't. No, you don't.

Chuck Schumer is running like a scared little girl, you know, trying to look like he's tough. Like I'm a revolutionary, just like you.

And it's just so ridiculous to see. But they can't put that genie back in the bottle. And, I mean, I hate to use that metaphor with Disney, but it's true. They can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's over. It's over. How are you going to clean that place up, and get rid of all the revolutionaries? You can't. That's all that's there now.

Are Leftists Swatting Conservatives? What to Do if You're Targeted

Are conservative influencers being targeted by leftists who are calling in fake 911 emergencies? A disturbing number of prominent conservatives have been falsely swatted in recent days. So, Glenn sits down with his local sheriff, Bill Waybourn of Tarrant County, and he urges you to do the same. Sheriff Waybourn gives an update on how common these false flag calls have become and also says that Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi is "absolutely on board" with prosecuting people. He also weighs in on how "the Cartel is being shut down" by Trump.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, if you have any doubt on which side in the country is dangerous. Both sides could be dangerous. But there is one side of the political debate. That has an actual active revolutionary army. And that is the left.

And we are seeing it. The earlier I played in the podcast. That the words of -- of Chuck Schumer. Who I guess he's trying to prove that he's manly or something.

But he is talking about. We are targeting Republicans in their own areas.

Which goes to some. He might just mean, like Sarah Palin meant, we're targeting, you know, through political process.

But there's too many people on the left, that are actually targeting. And let me give you this. A website called DOGE quest has published the personal information of Tesla owners, nationwide in -- in an apparent bid to shame and also intimidate them.

Because they're saying, you're a supporter of DOGE. And because you bought -- because you bought a car. Maybe you bought it because you believed in global warming.

I don't think you were probably on the Trump train, but okay. The site called DOGE Quest, reveals all of this information.

The operators who also posted the exact locations of Tesla dealerships said they will remove identifying information about Tesla drivers, only if they provide proof, that they sold their electric vehicles. Now, I don't know about you. But that sounds like the very definition of terrorism.

People have been doxxed. And there is something else that is happening.

And that is, people sending in S.W.A.T. teams. It's called swatting.

Let me just show you a montage here of some of the people that are being swatted. Look.

VOICE: Swatting against conservatives. We told you yesterday about Texas radio host Joe Pags being swatted.

VOICE: This morning, a growing number of conservative influencers are getting targeted by Schwartz.

VOICE: They were so urgent in getting the police to break down my door, and possibly kill me. In my doorway, they told them, I heard them on the scanner traffic, that he's bleeding out upstairs. Please hurry, and get inside.

VOICE: When I walked up to the door, he was pointing a gun at me. You know.

VOICE: We did just get swatted. The officer said they received a phone call that -- that somebody murdered somebody in the house and was planning a suicide by cop.

VOICE: And podcaster Nick Sortor also posted, both my dad and my sister were swatted tonight. A dozen cops attempting to kick my dad's door in at gun point.

VOICE: Yes, sir!

VOICE: Just a few hours ago, Infowars reporter and anchor Owen Shroyer was swatted at his home.

VOICE: And then most recently, Juanita Broaddrick posted, well, I just got swatted. About ten police and S.W.A.T. team showed up. They said the caller said there were two masked men and people said that had been shot.

GLENN: This is -- this is terrorism.

And those people who are making these calls, should go to prison for a very, very, very long time. Luckily, I know my sheriff in Fort Worth County.

I know, the guy who is protecting me and my neighbors. I know who he is. And he knows who I am, which, Sheriff Waybourn, welcome to the program.

That is the first key, is it not?

BILL: That is the first key, relationships are very, very helpful in these situations.

GLENN: So as we are sitting here, and I didn't mean Fort Worth, Tarrant County.

When we are sitting here, and you're seeing things like this happening, what -- what does that mean to you? And how you have to behave. And what you're walking into.

BILL: Right. When they get these urgent calls. They have got to respond. They have to be ready to go for law enforcement. In case it is real.

I will tell you, especially in the greater Fort Worth area. And the surrounding areas. They are very well aware of it.

There have been several of these. In this area, over the last year. There's probably been 15 or 16 cases.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

BILL: No. And I will tell you, they all turned out good. As far as law enforcement's reaction. Nothing went wrong or somebody got hurt. Because I think we've got some great law enforcement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: But when they're rolling towards that. I mean, the Intel starts at the moment that the 911 phone is listening and the dispatchers are trying to listen for different clues about what might be going on there. And they're passing it on.

And then we have other intelligence which I won't make public.

GLENN: Yeah, sure.

BILL: But we're trying to do that. Now, we're -- there's some preventive things that we need help from the homeowner.

GLENN: Okay. Like?

BILL: Well, one is, let's hide your information. Because a lot of this is coming over the gaming systems. It's really big. That's like 95 percent of the gaming systems, where you don't know who you're gaming with. But they know who you are. So we've got to protect your identity. We've got to protect your privacy. And try to block all things that show who you are.

And maybe some double stuff, where you -- you have code words. Or stuff. So you know who you are dealing with.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

I tell you, the gaming systems are terrifying. My son, he was being groomed for this pedophile.

And luckily, we found out about it. And the FBI came into the house, and they took the gaming system. And they said, it's all happening through the gaming system.

Luckily, the gaming system has a record. And so, it's recording everything.

Can you -- have you found. Or can we find these people?

How come we can't find -- does it -- does it triangulate the phone, if you're on a cell phone, and you're someplace? And you're calling it into 911.

Can we find these people?

LIZ: Sometimes, we can find these people. Some of these people are oversees. They're not even here in the United States, but we go after them.

If you will pardon the term, with the gust of a hound dog, using all resources, both federal, state, and local resources, to try to locate them.
And find out who they are. And when we get our hands on them, we will prosecute them for the felony that they've committed.

GLENN: And what are you hearing from Pam Bondi and the federal?

LIZ: Well, ironically, I talked to her this morning, but we didn't get to discuss this. But she is absolutely on board, prosecuting people federally, if at all possible.

That's just the temperament of who our attorney general is.

GLENN: Yeah. I want to ask you. Because I don't know -- I met Pam. But I don't know her.

And I'm a little concerned that, you know, the Epstein thing.

I'm hoping, and maybe you can help me on this. I'm hoping that she said, wait.

We're not releasing these things right now. Because we have internal cleanup to do.

And we are also building cases, against these people.

And we want to release it, when we can say, and we're prosecuting. Do you think that's her approach?

BILL: I think that's absolutely probably her approach. She is a very, very smart woman.

And a great prosecutor.

And so she's doing the cleanup, as you say.

And I think that she is watching very carefully, what she can and can't do.

GLENN: What is the difference between the last administration and the recent administration?

In your position.

BILL: In my position, it's that the cartel is being shut down.

And, you know, I visited with the Director of DPS last week, and they're averaging a little less than 200 crossings a day on the entire Texas border.

You know, last year, at this time. We're talking 15,000 a day. So that's absolutely the first thing that I would say, is that is happening.

But also, that the administration is coming alongside of us.

And some other areas. Like, THC. The THC products that are such a threat to our kids these days did I see.

They're coming alongside of us. As Texas is trying to pass laws. And we're trying to absolutely curb that issue.

GLENN: You know, I look at what's happening in Mexico.

With these cartels.

And I would -- I would think, putting myself in the shoes of a Mexican.

I would think to myself, I can't say anything about these cartels.

I know people who have run against. And said, they will clean it up. And they're dead. And their family is dead.

I want this to happen, but I can't really say anything, and my government is in bed with it.

I think the Mexican people, the average Mexican person. If we go in and say, okay. Mexico, you didn't do anything about it. And we're killing them all.

I think they will turn and say, you know what, let's go concentrate on some other market. Not in America.

Because they're serious about it. And I think the Mexican people would be happy.

I know I would be.

I would be thrilled. Is that your take?

LIZ: That is absolutely my take.

And I know just last week, unfortunately, they lost five Mexican National Guardsmen who were ambushed and killed bit cartel just a few days ago.

So they're fighting back. And they're trying to do some things.

But as we know, that government -- you know, I've said this publicly.

Is I don't trust them.

GLENN: You shouldn't.

LIZ: You know, we need to see what they're trying to do. And hopefully, they will stand you up. The cartel has --

GLENN: Are they capable?

Are they capable? Every time somebody stands up, they're dead.

BILL: They're dead.

GLENN: So are they capable of standing up, as -- as, you know, politicians, or even a group of politicians? Because, oh, that's a death sentence for them.

BILL: That is a death sentence.

I agree with you. I've said over a year ago.

I said, what would you like to happen? When the conservative president comes in.

I said, on or about Day 15 or 20, that the cartel is woken up by the 82nd Airborne.

And that I think we go in and clean them out, would be best for everybody.

GLENN: You think that's coming?

BILL: I don't know, because our president is unpredictable.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

BILL: But he has labeled them terrorists. So they are on notice, and I think anything is possible. And if I was a cartel leader, I might say, okay. Guys, we're closing shop.

And we're moving. And where are we going? That's what --

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- you know, the pushback on sending somebody in, is that, well, they're just going to retaliate in our cities.

You retaliate in our cities, and then it gets much worse for you.

I think if we just take out a few families, the kingpins.

BILL: That's right.

GLENN: And it all happens overnight, so fast. Everybody wakes up and says, oh, my gosh.

I really think. They won't retaliate. They will turn their attention someplace else.

Why risk that?

America is serious.

BILL: I agree with you, 100 percent. Because cartel ain't in business to be at war with America. They're in business to sell things.

GLENN: Right. Right.

BILL: And if it's not working out, you go to a different place. So I agree with you. I think that if we take out a few of the kingpins. A few of the leadership. I think that would do it.

GLENN: Are you concerned -- we just talked about swatting. Have we had any Tesla attacks or anything?

BILL: We have none, that I know of, in Tarrant County.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's -- used to be the conservative county. In -- in Texas.

But it certainly isn't anymore. Boy, we're on a razor's edge. I'm really, truly worried especially well Hollywood coming in. I'm very worried that we could lose Texas. People in Texas, that grew up in Texas, spent their whole life in Texas. And are not paying attention.

They think Texas will always be Texas.

It's -- it's on a knife's edge.

BILL: We need to always be on our game.

We need to always be working in -- and spreading our conservative values. And educating the public as best we can.

GLENN: Sheriff, always good to see you. Best to your family.

You bet. Sheriff. Bill Waybourn.

A -- a sheriff that if you don't have one like him, you should get one. You know exactly -- if you don't mind me sharing, sheriff. Before you leave.

I asked him at one point. What happens if the federal government comes in and starts taking citizen's guns.

And he said, well, if I may quote you.

The -- all my deputies need guns.

And I just have to deputize everybody in the county.

I just love that. I love that.

Thank you, Bill.

I appreciate it.