Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Homeschooling family set to be deported, lawyer gives Glenn the latest

May 15, 2013
Wilson

Writer

GLENN: I want to go right to Michael Farris. He is the homeschooling legal defense association head guy, and we have had him on a couple of times. Do you remember the family from Germany that left Germany because the State was going to take their children away because they wanted to teach them about God. They did not want them in public schools where it was Godless and teaching them things that they didn't want to teach their children. And so their children came over here from Germany. We had them on the TV show a couple of weeks ago. They are remarkable people, just remarkable people. They came over here, they did it the right way, they came through the front door. They have asked for asylum. They were granted asylum. They set up their life, they're working, they're not ‑‑ they're not on the government Dole, they're making money and they love America. And they're here for religious freedom. Well, Eric Holder decided, no, we're not going to grant you asylum. So he challenged the Court and said, I want to make a different, a different case. And the case that I want to make is homeschooling is not a God‑given right. You don't have a right to homeschool. So they're not really being oppressed because there is no right. The government can take your children and educate them any way they want to.

Yesterday the federal government overturned the case, so now they're no longer granted asylum. They have to go home. If they choose to teach their children about God, their children will be taken from them. If this isn't the clearest case of oppression, if this isn't a clear case of people who need a refuge, need to come here to America so their children aren't taken away merely for their belief in God, merely for their belief that they should be able to teach their children, I don't know what is. This case has everything to do with your children. This case really is not about the Romeike family. This case is about what this government's about to do to you and your children. That's my belief.

Michael Farris is here. Michael, shocking decision yesterday.

FARRIS: It was, Glenn. I had a hard time containing my emotions. I got a call as I was driving to the office when I got in. It was all I could do, but it was very fast, it was very one‑sided, and the court was ‑‑ in oral argument there was one judge that was incredibly aggressive and hostile. We were holding out hope for the other two, but it didn't work out that way.

GLENN: Why was he hostile? Why was he hostile?

FARRIS: Well, what he was saying was basically everybody should obey the government.

GLENN: Jeez.

FARRIS: I mean, and to some degree that was the essence of the opinion is that because there's a compulsory attendance law for everybody in Germany, then tough beans. Just because it applies to you in a particularly harsh way, that's too bad for you. It's ooh general law.

GLENN: Well, wait a minute. Then couldn't you say that about the Jews that were in Germany?

PAT: Couldn't you say that about the Cubans who come here for asylum from Cuba?

GLENN: I mean, there's ‑‑ so it's applied to you harshly.

PAT: Yeah, tough.

GLENN: Oh, well, there's a lot of people that are in Cuba that don't have harsh conditions.

PAT: Sorry you don't like communism. That's ‑‑ you should obey the law.

FARRIS: That's exactly the point, and they make the argument essentially this, that the only value we're going to protect is equal protection, which throws individual liberty into the trash heap. And ‑‑ because these people are standing on individual liberty claims. They are not saying that the law as written only applies to them in some peculiar way. The harshest of the punishment clearly is aimed at the homeschooling, and the real essence of an asylum case is to prove persecution, and the essence of persecution is the government's motive. And that's real clear. I mean, the law is extremely clear on that point. Yet, they do not even quote, they do not even cite the statements by the Supreme Court of Germany, by the court of appeals of Germany, by the federal ministers of Germany that say out loud very explicitly we are trying to stop religious and philosophical minorities from getting a foothold in this country. That's what they say, out loud. And they ‑‑ by ignoring that motive is the only way they get to the conclusion they've reached and if we ‑‑

GLENN: So this is not just ‑‑ this is not just an attack on homeschooling here in America. I'm just trying to ‑‑ I'm trying to figure out where this, where this case actually goes, why, out of all the cases that you could pick, why Eric Holder said this one. And so this one not only appears to me to be about your right to homeschool your kids here in America but also religious liberty.

FARRIS: Oh, it does. And it goes with, you know, what we're seeing with the IRS and the attack on conservatives. You know, the fact that home ‑‑ Christian homeschoolers are seen as philosophical conservatives, the administration is dedicated to philosophical liberalism or progressivism, and they support their friends and they attack their enemies. And they are ‑‑ you know, that's not what the court decision's about, but that's what Eric Holder is about. Eric Holder I believe cannot offer a legitimate justification for why we're pursuing leniency for 11 million people who came here illegally and at the same time trying to deport this one German homeschooling family. There is no logical argument that can explain that disparity.

GLENN: Especially they are not on the government teat.

FARRIS: Yes, exactly.

GLENN: They are not on the government teat. Everyone else comes over here that they are trying to excuse, every single person that they are trying to excuse comes over here illegally through the back door and then is taking all of our services. These guys are not taking the services. They are actually ‑‑ are they employed?

FARRIS: Yes, they are ‑‑ they are music teachers. They have students who come and take music lessons from them.

GLENN: Are they paying their taxes?

FARRIS: Absolutely.

GLENN: I mean, these people are paying their taxes, they're employed. Are they using their real names?

FARRIS: They are using their real names.

GLENN: Have they stolen Social Security numbers?

FARRIS: No.

GLENN: I mean, why are we attacking these people? It is absolutely incredible to me.

FARRIS: This is what the administration wants. They want the people that fit the profile you just outlined and ‑‑

GLENN: And I will tell you this. This goes into exactly what we talked about last week on For the Record. We did a special For the Record. The first half was on the Coptic Christians that this administration is paying no attention to and they are being slaughtered, they are being raped, and so many are coming over here and trying for asylum. We still don't know if they are going to get asylum or not. I mean, are those Christians going to get asylum or are we going to send those guys back, those people literally to death? Oh, this ‑‑

FARRIS: Well, if the administration's going to be consistent, they are going to take a stand against those people as well because they don't fit the profile that the administration is looking to Curry. You know, what we are learning every day about this administration is they are not interested in constitutional principles except as a grounds of suppressing people, they are not interested in obeying the First Amendment and they are certainly not interested in religious freedom. They have a political agenda, they punished their enemies, they reward their friends. And Coptic Christians, German homeschoolers, American homeschoolers line up on the wrong side of the track and so rights, liberty, all of that gets thrown away when Eric Holder and Barack Obama are involved.

PAT: So Michael, what happens now? Where do we go from here? You're appealing this, right?

FARRIS: We're doing a motion for rehearing to the entire sixth circuit. Every court of appeals decision is decided by three judges at the outset. In rare cases all the sitting judges will decide to hear it on bond, and there's 15 judges that are active judges in the sixth circuit. You don't count the semi‑retired judges that are senior status, but 15 judges, and we have to get one of those judges to, you know, say they want to circulate the petition and then they take a vote. And if a majority of the 15 say we want to hear the case, then we go into briefing and another oral argument.

GLENN: Do you think you have a ‑‑

FARRIS: If they don't, then we go to the Supreme Court.

PAT: So that would be the next step is if they turn that down, you're going to the Supreme Court?

FARRIS: Right. The appeal to the fifth circuit, what we just did is an appeal of rights. They have to listen to us. The two appeals that are left are discretionary. Neither court has to grant even a chance to make the case. They first decide whether they think it's important enough to take the decision and so ‑‑

PAT: What are the ramifications for the three million or so homeschoolers here in this country? Is it ‑‑ does this affect those of us who homeschool that this isn't just some right that we have to do with our children?

FARRIS: Not directly but it builds a precedent about what are rights and what are privileges. And the position of the government ‑‑ the sixth circuit decision in that regard was better than the government's position, but it's a far cry from, you know, a clean defense of rights. They said basically American homeschoolers may have the opportunity to make a case that's different because they can rely on the constitution, whereas we don't judge Germany by our U.S. Constitution.

GLENN: My gosh, then we don't ‑‑

PAT: They are not living in Germany, however.

GLENN: I mean, this is incredible to me.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Then why do we take a single person from Cuba or China ‑‑

PAT: Right.

GLENN: ‑‑ or the boat people.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Why didn't we take the boat people and send them all back? Why didn't we take the Jews ‑‑ I'm sorry. We were under a progressive administration. We did actually send the boat of Jews back. So at least they are being consistent.

FARRIS: They are being consistent.

PAT: Unbelievable. Wow.

FARRIS: And so, you know, so they pay a little bit of lip service to the rights of American homeschoolers, but the essence of a government's argument is this: Homeschooling and religious freedom are not individual rights that are protected. They are privileges that the government can grant you or not grant you. And if they have a broad general law that bans your rights, then just because they're privileges, they go away. That's the ultimate government position and, you know, what the sixth circuit opinion will sort out to be in the long run, it's a building block in the wrong direction. It's not a complete eradication of our rights, nor could it be since it's just a circuit court opinion. The Supreme Court and the justice department can do more damage to us. They also can vindicate us. And there's no reason Eric Holder can't end this mess today and just simply say, "You know what? I'm going to grant them asylum." He could do it today. And he doesn't have to wait for any more court decisions. If he wanted to get the, you know, to do something to show he has a little bit of an evenhanded spirit about him ‑‑

PAT: No way. No way. There's no way he would do that.

FARRIS: ‑‑ then he would sign this today. I'm not expecting it.

PAT: Yeah.

FARRIS: I'm not holding my breath, but he could. He has the authority ask the ability to do it today if he wanted to.

GLENN: Okay. So huh. Let me ask you this. Crazy thought: Does the State have the ability to say we as the State are going to grant this person ‑‑ are going to grant this family an asylum?

FARRIS: Well, I've been thinking that through because usually they ‑‑ when it comes time to deport them, they have to get the sheriff to come and arrest the people. I think that the Tennessee legislature could pass a law that basically says we direct our sheriffs not to deport people under these circumstances. Not to cooperate. I think there is a path for exploration of a state override of the federal mandate in this particular circumstance, but that's something we're going to have to pursue. There's also the ability to go to congress and get them to pass individual legislation that protects this family. And if we fail in the courts, that's where we're going to go next. We will go and attempt that. I've told the family, you know, I've actually literally said it's going to be over my dead body they send you back to Germany. So I'm going to do whatever I possibly can do and I'm going to keep fighting. And I am not giving up on this. And, you know, we're in the seventh inning and we're behind at this point. But the ninth ‑‑ the eighth and ninth innings are still coming and we're going to keep fighting.

GLENN: Michael, you have my commitment. You tell the family that over my dead body as well.

FARRIS: All right.

GLENN: We're in this ‑‑

FARRIS: I am happy to stand shoulder to shoulder, Glenn, with you on just about anything. So thank you very much. And thank you for all you've been doing for this family for this case. Your generosity and your support have been absolutely exemplary and have led the way for others who have been willing to help as well. Thank you so much.

GLENN: How are you guys ‑‑ how are you guys doing on cash for all of this? Do you need ‑‑ would it help if people ‑‑

FARRIS: Well, you know, we ‑‑ you've been so generous with us that, you know, what's happened, you know, happened so far has been paid for. It's ‑‑ you know, we're good as of this moment. You know, there's going to be other things but, you know, we'll never turn down more help, but you ‑‑

GLENN: What is your Web address?

FARRIS: ‑‑ express generosity for what you've done today, that's for sure.

GLENN: Is it hslda.org?

FARRIS: That's the website, yep. That's the main organization. If people want to give tax‑deductible contributions, they should do it through the homeschool foundation. That's our (C)(3) arm.

GLENN: And how do you ‑‑ what's the web address?

FARRIS: They think just link off the main web address.

GLENN: You need a more clever website because nobody's going to remember.

FARRIS: Yeah.

GLENN: Hslda, Home School Legal Defense Association, hslda.org. Go there and ‑‑

FARRIS: That's what happens when you're ‑‑ the organization's 30 years old.

GLENN: I know. Thank you very much, Michael. I appreciate it. God bless.

FARRIS: All right. God bless you.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye. I think this is a ‑‑

PAT: It's crazy.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It's crazy.

GLENN: I think this is a case that a state could get around.

GLENN: Well, I don't know. He seemed to have some help there but I don't see how because the federal immigration laws trump the state immigration laws. It's a federal law, not state. And you can't ‑‑ you can't circum ‑‑ and that's why ‑‑ that's why the state couldn't allow Arizona, that's why they sued Arizona because you can't trump federal law there. That's why Texas has a hard time bumping up against federal law. With immigration it's really tough. It's tough.

GLENN: I cannot believe that this government is actually saying amnesty for everybody that's here.

PAT: Except these guys.

GLENN: Except these guys.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Who are law‑abiding, came in the front door, actually have a case of oppression, religious oppression. This is ‑‑ but these people don't appreciate the founders. They think that the Euro, the Euro trash that came over here, you know, stole all this land and so that's why, you know, give it all back to the ‑‑ I'm sorry. The Hispanics? Hispanics? You mean Hispania? Spain? Give the land back to the Spaniards? Really? But the Euro trash that came over here, that's bad? Okay, I get it. That's the most ridiculous line I've ever heard in my life. If there is somebody who is from Cuba and they need help, we help them! We help them. If somebody is being ‑‑ if their children are being taken away, you know what? Are you telling me that if come country was taking away the right of a Muslim family to raise their children in Islam that this administration would not give ‑‑ they would not roll the red carpet out for them and lecture us on how we need to be tolerant and a better nation because all of the eyes of the world is on us? Really? Bullcrap. Enough is enough. Over my dead body.

Crazy enough to be true? The connection between the Cybertruck bomber and cryptic drones

WADE VANDERVORT / Contributor | Getty Images

Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation.

A chilling story has emerged: A whistleblower, claiming to possess knowledge of advanced military technologies and covert operations, took his own life in a shocking explosion outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. He left behind a manifesto filled with claims so extraordinary they sound like science fiction. Yet if even a fraction of them prove true, the implications are staggering and demand immediate attention.

This whistleblower alleges that the United States and China developed “gravitic propulsion systems,” technologies that manipulate gravity itself to enable silent, undetectable flight at unimaginable speeds. According to his claims, these systems are not theoretical — they are operational, deployed both in the United States and China. If true, this would render conventional defense systems obsolete, fundamentally altering the global balance of power.

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever.

Imagine aircraft that defy radar, heat signatures, and missile defense systems. They carry massive payloads, conduct surveillance, and operate without a sound. If such technologies exist, they pose a national security threat unlike any we’ve faced.

But why haven’t we been told? If these claims are false, they must be debunked transparently. If true, the public has a right to know how such technologies are being used and safeguarded.

The whistleblower’s manifesto goes farther, claiming that with this technology, the United States and China developed and deployed the infamous drones that were seen across the United States starting late last year. He alleged that China launched them from submarines along the U.S. East Coast, calling them “the most dangerous threat to national security” because of their stealth, ability to evade detection, and unlimited payload capacity. He ties this advanced technology to other surveillance systems, creating a network so advanced it makes our current intelligence capabilities look primitive.

These claims may sound far-fetched, but they highlight a deeper issue: the cost of government secrecy. Not knowing — and not being told — fuels distrust and speculation. Without transparency, these incidents dangerously erode public confidence in our leaders and institutions.

The cost of secrecy

Beyond technology, the manifesto also alleges moral failures, including war crimes and deliberate cover-ups during U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan. In one particularly harrowing claim, the whistleblower describes attacks in Afghanistan’s Nimroz Province in 2019. He alleges that 125 buildings were targeted, with 65 struck, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths in a single day. Even after civilians were spotted, he claims, the strikes continued knowingly and deliberately.

The United Nations investigated similar incidents and confirmed civilian casualties during these operations. However, the whistleblower’s accusations go farther, implicating high-ranking officials, the Department of Defense, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Central Intelligence Agency, and even top military generals in a broader pattern of deceit, eroding the moral integrity of our military and government.

Whether these specific claims hold up, they underscore a larger issue: Secrecy breeds corruption. When people in power hide their actions and evade accountability, they break trust — and everyone pays the price, not just those at the top but also the citizens and soldiers they serve.

Transparency is an imperative

America’s founders warned us about unchecked government power. Today, their warnings feel more relevant than ever. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the Capitol riot on January 6 to the potential misuse of advanced technologies, the American people have been kept in the dark for too long.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and sunlight is coming. Transparency must become our rallying cry. As we look to the future, we must demand accountability — not just from those we oppose politically but from all leaders entrusted with power. This isn’t about partisanship; it’s about preserving our nation from self-destruction.

As we enter a new chapter in our nation’s history, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Whether it’s uncovering the truth about advanced technology, holding perpetrators of corruption accountable, or seeking justice for war crimes, we must act. This isn’t just a call to action — it’s a moral imperative.

Our strength lies in our unity and our resolve. The powerful fear an informed and vocal citizenry. Let’s prove them right. By demanding transparency and accountability, we can restore trust and ensure that the government serves the people — not the other way around.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Has Zuckerberg REALLY changed?

Mark Zuckerberg's recent announcement to lift content moderation policies across all of Meta's platforms and end the company's reliance on third-party fact-checkers, at first glance, is an incredible left turn given the platform's long-term participation in online censorship. However, does their shift signal a genuine change of heart, or are there more selfish motivations at play?

On the Glenn Beck Program, Glenn and Stu looked at both perspectives. On the one hand, Zuckerberg's announcement, adding UFC President and avid Trump supporter Dana White to Meta's board of directors indicates major progress in America's pushback against online censorship. However, Glenn also posited that Zuckerberg's intentions are chiefly to win the good graces of the incoming Trump administration in order to maintain Meta's controversial work in virtual and augmented reality technologies (VR/AR).

There is evidence for both perspectives, and we lay it all out for you below:

Did Zuck have a genuine change of heart?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Zuckerberg’s bombshell announcement, at face value, suggests that Meta recognizes the greater demand for free speech on online platforms and growing discontent against content moderation that has censored non-mainstream political opinions, including Glenn and Blaze Media. Zuckerberg described this shift as an authentic attempt to return to the company’s roots of promoting free expression, acknowledging past mistakes in suppressing voices and content deemed politically controversial. Moreover, Meta's new adoption of community-driven content flags similar to X positions itself as a platform that values user input rather than the biased perspective of any single third-party "fact-checker."

Additionally, Zuckerberg’s evolving views on Donald Trump strengthen the argument that his "change of heart" is genuine. Before the 2024 election, Zuckerberg expressed admiration for Trump, even calling him a "badass" after the first assassination attempt, noting how the event changed his perspective on the then-presidential candidate. Moreover, his embrace of new board members, such as UFC President Dana White, a staunch Trump supporter, further suggests that Meta may be diversifying its leadership and welcoming a more inclusive approach to varied political opinions. In this context, Meta’s move away from fact-checking can be interpreted as a commitment to fostering an environment where free speech and diverse political perspectives are genuinely valued.

Or is it about self-preservation?

DREW ANGERER / Contributor | Getty Images

While it is tempting to view Meta’s policy change as a sincere commitment to free speech, there is also a compelling argument that the company’s motivations are rooted in self-preservation. Glenn suggested Meta’s financial interests, particularly in virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) technologies, indicate its pivot may be less about principle and more about ensuring continued government contracts and capital flow. Zuckerberg’s significant investments in VR/AR technology, which has already cost the company billions, may be driving his need to align Meta’s policies with the political climate to safeguard future funding from both the government and private sectors.

Moreover, the company’s financial projections for the coming years show a sharp increase in advertising revenue, driven primarily by Facebook’s dominance in social media. This revenue helps sustain Meta’s ambitions in the VR/AR space, where it faces significant losses. The government’s involvement in funding military and tech projects tied to VR/AR underscores the importance of maintaining favorable political relationships. For these reasons, many view Zuckerberg's policy change as an attempt to position Meta for maximum political and financial benefit.

POLL: Is GLOBAL WARMING responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Apu Gomes / Stringer | Getty Images

As wildfires sweep across California and threaten to swallow up entire neighborhoods in Los Angeles, one question is on everyone's mind: What went wrong?

So far over 45 square miles of the city have been scorched, while the intense smoke is choking out the rest of L.A. Thousands of structures, including many family homes, have been destroyed, and many more are at risk as firefighters battle the flames. Many on the left, including Senator Bernie Sanders, have been quick to point to climate change as the cause of the devastating fires, citing the chronic lack of rain in L.A.

Others, including Glenn, have pointed out another potential cause: the severe mismanagement of the forests and water supply of Los Angeles and California in general. Unlike many other states and most other forested countries, California does not clear out the dead trees and dry vegetation that builds up on the forest floor and acts as kindling, fueling the fire as it whips through the trees.

On top of this, California has neglected its water supply for decades despite its crucial role in combating fires. The state of California has not built a new major water reservoir to store and capture water since the 1970s, leading to repeat water shortages in Southern California. To top it off, Gavin Newsom personally derailed a 2020 Trump order to divert water from areas of the state with excess water to parched Southern California. Why? To save an already functionally extinct fish. Now firefighters in L.A. are running out of water as the city is engulfed in flames. At least the fish are okay...

But what do you think? Are the wildfires a product of years of mismanagement? Or a symptom of a changing climate? Let us know in the poll below:

Is climate change responsible for the fires in L.A.?

Are the L.A. fires a product of years of mismanagement? 

Do you think controlled burns are an effective way to prevent wildfires?

AI Singularity? ChatGPT rates Glenn's 2025 predictions

KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV / Contributor | Getty Images

On this week's Glenn TV special, Glenn divulged his top predictions for 2025. While some of his predictions spelled hope for current geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine, others took a more harrowing turn, from AI reaching singularity to a major banking crisis and a "Summer of Rage 2.0."

But what does ChatGPT think? Glenn's head researcher asked ChatGPT about the likelihood of each of Glenn's predictions, and the results spell trouble for 2025.

Which of Glenn's predictions did ChatGPT say will come true? Find out below:

1. The internet will be destroyed and reborn through AI.

Summary: AI will restructure the internet, centralize control with tech giants, and raise concerns over censorship.

ChatGPT Probability: 90%

Further Explanation:

Glenn began with a harrowing fact: the internet, as we know it, is slowly dying. We don’t truly have access to "the internet" in its entirety, but rather, we have a small sliver curated by those who control the indexes and brokers of the web. The slow decline of the internet is evident in the increasing irrelevance of many existing pages and documents, with countless dead links and broken websites. This issue demonstrates the growing problem of content disappearing, changing, or becoming irrelevant without updates to reflect these changes.

To address this growing problem, experts suggest that a massive "reboot" of the internet is necessary. Rather than continuing to patch up these issues each year, they argue that a thorough cleaning of the digital space is required, which is where AI comes into play. Google has already proposed using AI to scour the web and determine which content is still relevant, storing only active links. Glenn worries that we will embrace AI out of convenience to fix the problems facing the internet but ignore the widening door to the potential dangers that such convenience brings.

2. AI and ChatGPT innovations will be integrated into everyday life.

Summary: AI will dominate search engines, become personal assistants, and spark regulatory battles over ethics.

ChatGPT Probability: 70%

Further Explanation:

Glenn predicted that AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly serve as gatekeepers, determining what information is accessible and valid. While this centralization will enhance user convenience, it raises serious ethical concerns about bias, manipulation, and censorship. These innovations mark the beginning of an expansion in the concept of "being human," with AI digital assistants becoming integrated into everyday life in ways that could significantly change how we interact with technology. However, these advancements will prompt regulatory battles, as governments push for stricter AI oversight, especially in light of concerns over privacy and "misinformation."

3. AI will attain singularity.

Summary: AI progress will remain uneven, with no imminent singularity expected despite rapid advancements.

ChatGPT Probability: 20%

Further Explanation:

The prediction that AI will reach "the singularity" in 2025 means that it will surpass human intelligence, leading to rapid, exponential growth. Glenn pointed to AI’s rapid progress, such as ChatGPT’s growth from 0% to 5% in four years, and an expected jump to 87% by the end of the year. However, the debate about benchmarks for achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) remains muddled, as there is no clear definition of what constitutes "the singularity." Glenn believes one key indicator will be the unemployment rate in key industries, which could become a major indicator of AGI's impact by 2026.

While AI is advancing quickly in specific areas, like natural language processing, vision, and robotics, ChatGPT cautions that achieving AGI, and thereby the singularity, is still far off and that continuous, unbroken exponential growth in AI innovation is also unlikely. Therefore, ChatGPT concludes, that while significant advancements in AI are expected, the idea of an unimpeded, straight-line trajectory toward the singularity within the next year is unrealistic.

4. There will be a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine.

Summary: A temporary ceasefire will freeze borders but will leave future conflict inevitable.

ChatGPT Probability: 80%

Further Explanation:

Both Ukraine and Russia are exhausted, depleting their manpower and munitions. With Donald Trump’s return to the political scene, Glenn predicts that his involvement could lead to negotiations and a temporary ceasefire. While the borders may remain as they are for the time being, the unresolved tensions would likely leave the door open for renewed conflict in the future. This temporary resolution would provide both sides with the breathing room they need, but it could set the stage for continued instability down the line.

5. There will be a second 'Summer of Rage.'

Summary: Anti-Trump protests will escalate into violent riots, targeting infrastructure and triggering martial law in areas.

ChatGPT Probability: 75%

Further Explanation:

Anticipating a summer of intense protests, Glenn predicts that groups like Antifa, BLM, and Occupy Wall Street, likely collaborating with formal unions and socialist organizations, will escalate their opposition to Trump’s policies. As protests grow, Trump will be vilified, and the right will be labeled fascist, with predictable media images depicting the separation of families and the chaos unfolding in major cities.

This prediction envisions a scenario similar to the Summer of Rage in the 1960s, with violent riots and widespread destruction in over 100 major cities. College campuses will be sites of massive protests, police stations may be directly targeted, and critical agencies like ICE, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security headquarters could be assaulted. As tensions escalate, National Guard troops may be deployed, and parts of Washington, D.C., could experience a "martial law" atmosphere. While the prediction sees the protests turning violent and disruptive, the real question is how suburban "soccer moms" will react when these riots hit closer to home.

6. The largest anti-Western 'caliphate' will emerge.

Summary: Middle Eastern factions may consolidate to control energy routes, destabilizing global markets.

ChatGPT Probability: 60%

Further Explanation:

Following Biden's controversial tenure and failures in handling the Middle East, a new anti-Western Caliphate will emerge, as various terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Houthis, and the Taliban unite under several leaders rather than one. These groups will receive support from Russia, North Korea, and China, creating a formidable alliance. Their objective will be to control approximately 30% of the world’s energy supply by seizing key oil routes through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Red Sea. This would give them dominion over critical global trade routes, including the Suez Canal. As alliances among these groups form, the longstanding Sunni-Shia conflict will be momentarily set aside in favor of unity against common enemies, with the U.S. and its allies as primary targets.

Europe will be too fractured to intervene, leaving the U.S. and Israel to confront this rising threat alone. The involvement of Russia and China will further complicate the situation, as both nations seek to undermine U.S. influence in Ukraine and Taiwan while securing access to energy markets in the Middle East. This prediction suggests that Biden’s foreign policy decisions will leave a lasting legacy of instability in the region. The necessity for the U.S. to increase domestic energy production, through policies like increased drilling, will become a national security issue in the face of this emerging threat.

7. China will invade a neighboring country.

Summary: China could target weaker nations under the guise of peacekeeping to assert dominance.

ChatGPT Probability: 55%

Further Explanation:

After years of military posturing, China’s aggressive rhetoric and actions have begun to lose their credibility, with the world perceiving its military buildup as a paper tiger. As the U.S. faces increasing isolation, and global conflicts in Europe and the Middle East divert attention, China will seize the opportunity to strike. However, it will target a country that is unlikely to mount a significant defense or provoke a strong reaction. This eliminates major regional powers like Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines from the list of potential targets.

Countries such as Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Laos, and Vietnam may become focal points for Chinese aggression. Vietnam and Bangladesh are particularly compelling targets, as they are emerging alternatives for U.S. and Western companies shifting manufacturing away from China. A Chinese invasion of these nations could impact U.S. interests by compelling tactical responses, such as deploying ships for air superiority and missile defense.

8. The U.S. stock market will collapse and ensue a banking crisis.

Summary: Rising rates and layoffs may trigger a stock market downturn and small business disruptions.

ChatGPT Probability: 50%

Further Explanation:

In a bid to boost the economy for the 2024 election cycle and secure a Democratic victory, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, along with key figures from major banks, kept interest rates and policies favorable to financial institutions. This led to a temporary surge in stock prices just before the election. However, the anticipated economic boost failed to materialize due to broader political dynamics. Now, Powell is advocating for tighter policies, raising interest rates to cool an economy that he claims has become overheated, setting the stage for a stock market crash and a federal government funding crisis.

Glenn predicted that this manufactured crisis will have far-reaching consequences, starting with major disruptions on Wall Street and spilling into Main Street, resulting in layoffs, bankruptcies, and widespread economic instability. The Fed's role in shaping these events will dominate political discussions, and the economic fallout will force President Trump to take ownership of the crisis. Small businesses are advised to fortify their supply chains and secure favorable long-term contracts to mitigate the risks of rising prices and potential disruptions as the financial situation worsens in 2025.

9. North Korea will provoke South Korea.

Summary: Small-scale attacks by North Korea will distract from larger conflicts involving China and Russia.

ChatGPT Probability: 40%

Further Explanation:

In a potential move orchestrated by China to divert global attention from its own ambitions, North Korea may provoke South Korea with a calculated attack. This could involve a limited strike, such as firing ballistic missiles at a South Korean naval vessel, claiming it had intruded into North Korean waters, or attacking a military base along the border under the pretext of border violations or espionage. The primary goal of North Korea’s actions would be to test the waters and assess the West's reactions, particularly the U.S.'s willingness to intervene.

10. Those connected to Sean 'Diddy' Combs and Jeffery Epstein will be revealed. 

Summary: Investigations into scandals face resistance from powerful players, making progress unlikely.

ChatGPT Probability: 15%

Further Explanation:

Glenn predicts that the lists of individuals connected to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and hip-hop mogul Diddy will be released. The release of these lists would likely trigger a significant public outcry, as it could implicate high-profile figures in serious scandals. However, the investigation and disclosure of such lists would require substantial evidence and resources and may face significant resistance from powerful industry players.

While media pressure and public opinion could push for transparency, the political and legal complexities surrounding such a release might hinder progress in the investigations. Given the challenges involved, ChatGPT says this prediction holds a relatively low probability, but it remains a topic of speculation and intrigue in the ongoing fallout from the Epstein case.

11. Trump will appoint 2 Supreme Court justices.

Summary: Retirements could allow Trump to reshape the court further right, but it's unlikely within the year.

ChatGPT Probability: 25%

Further Explanation:

Gless predicts that the aging U.S. Supreme Court may see retirements or unexpected vacancies, potentially allowing President Donald Trump to appoint two more justices. If such vacancies occur, it would shift the balance of the court further to the right. However, ChatGPT says this prediction is less likely due to the unpredictable nature of retirements and the political challenges associated with confirming Supreme Court appointments, particularly if the Senate is divided or controlled by a party opposing Trump.

12. The U.S. will establish a special relationship with Greenland.

Summary: Strengthened ties with Greenland are possible but forcing a special relationship is improbable.

ChatGPT Probability: 35%

Further Explanation:

Donald Trump has previously shown interest in Greenland, particularly in 2019 when he proposed the idea of purchasing the island, sparking significant controversy. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, holds strategic geopolitical and resource-based importance, making it a key area of interest for the U.S., especially in light of its proximity to Russia. However, ChatGPT says attempting to force a "special relationship" with Greenland would be difficult, as both Greenland's government and Denmark would likely resist such overtures, considering the complexities of sovereignty and international relations. Despite the strategic importance, this prediction holds a moderate probability due to political and diplomatic constraints.

13. The U.S. will take control of the Panama Canal. 

Summary: Re-negotiating Panama Canal control is highly unlikely due to political and diplomatic realities.

ChatGPT Probability: 10%

Further Explanation:

The Panama Canal, which was transferred to Panama’s control in 1999 following the Panama Canal Treaty, has remained under Panama's sovereignty ever since. Glenn, however, says he believes Trump's efforts to renegotiate control over the canal will succeed. However, ChatGPT says that given the historical context and the sensitivity of national sovereignty, the likelihood of Trump successfully regaining control of the canal is quite low.

To learn more, can watch the entire GlennTV special here: