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

Evan McMullin Will Be on the Ballot in Potentially 45 States

October 13, 2016
Ted Tuttle

Editor

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin joined Glenn on radio Thursday for a compelling interview about the state of the election.

McMullin's campaign has experienced a notable surge in Utah, and the Independent Party candidate is already on the ballot in 34 states. By Election Day, that number could soar to 45.

RELATED: Evan McMullin: We Must Seek Honest, Wise Leaders, Not Merely Those the Party Gave Us

Glenn and McMullin discussed the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and serious issues like Russia, ISIS, border control and the economy.

Read below or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What qualifications does McMullin have to handle the economic crisis?

• How will McMullin's CIA experience help with fighting ISIS?

• What are McMullin's positions on personal and business taxes?

• Will McMullin force companies to return to the U.S.?

• Where did McMullin earn his MBA?

Listen to Part 2 of Glenn's most recent interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: We are talking to Evan McMullin, candidate for president. He is a candidate -- will be a candidate in 50 -- or, 45 states by the time this is over.

Let me give you a couple things, Evan, to talk about. Because, you know, people don't really know who you are. And we are facing some really bad scenarios coming our way. One, Russia has said in several different ways in the last few weeks that they are rattling the saber, saying that we're on the edge of nuclear war.

I don't know how much of that is true. But I do know that Putin -- do you know how who Dugin is? Aleksandr Dugin. Are you familiar with him?

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: Okay. Aleksandr Dugin is one of the advisers of Putin, a really dangerous guy. He has his fingers in the alt-right here in America and all throughout Europe.

EVAN: Oh, yes.

GLENN: So we have that brewing. We have Islamic jihad brewing.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: We have an open border situation where we don't know who is in this country.

EVAN: Right.

GLENN: And then today we have this: HSBC, the head of the technical analyst department for HSBC has said we are now on red alert for an immanent selloff in stocks, given the price over the past few weeks. He says the pattern shows that we are headed for something at least as bad as 1987.

What experience do you have -- we know you have now CIA experience, global foreign relations experience, but what experience do you have on the economy and finance?

EVAN: Well, you know, I attended the Wharton school, earned an MBA there, and then went on to work in finance at Goldman Sachs. A -- a bank that, you know, is very --

GLENN: Oh.

EVAN: -- is very controversial. But I'll tell you what I did and what I learned, which I think are lessons that all presidents should know. And that is what it takes for companies to thrive in this global marketplace in a way that they can create jobs here in the United States, good-paying jobs. I worked with leaders in industrial companies. Companies that make airplanes and airplane parts here in the United States. I worked with technology companies. I was in California, San Francisco. I worked with companies and consumer package products, in health care. But I learned so much about so many different industries during my time there. And they all have different needs. And they all face different challenges.

But presidents should know these things. Presidents should know that we need government, for example, to get out of the way in order for our economy to thrive.

You know, the number one thing I heard from business leaders when I was working with him in that role is that they had a lot of capital on the sidelines, they would say, that they couldn't or didn't feel comfortable investing in new jobs and new equipment, because they were worried about regulatory uncertainty or a regulatory burden, even if there wasn't uncertainty, just the burden of regulations.

So that's a huge problem we have. I mean, there's so many others -- the corporate tax rate and others. But, you know, we've got to have a president who will signal to the business community that this company -- this country is going to be open for business, that companies are going to be able to thrive.

And part of it, also, Glenn, I just have to say this is that we've lost sight of promoting a truly open market. We've got way too much crony capitalism. I saw it with my own eyes, when I was the chief policy director for the House Republicans.

You know, we have a government that's sort of geared towards helping big corporations. But -- but that -- you know, but advances policies that stifle the small- and medium-sized company, that can't deal with these regulations. And so why is that such a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because it harms competition. And because of that, it harms innovation. And innovation is the lifeblood, one of the lifebloods of our country. We need a more open economy. We need to get rid of crony capitalism. It's a huge problem. But we will not thrive unless we make some of these changes or all of them.

PAT: We're speaking to Evan McMullin, independent candidate for president.

Evan, this is Pat. You know, in addition to going to Wharton -- whatever, but you also attended BYU. Right? And I saw you last week or a week and a half ago at the game. And, you know --

GLENN: We have 40 minutes with the presidential candidate and you're going --

PAT: And being a Cougar fan is one of his most impressive attributes.

GLENN: Right. Do you have a real question?

PAT: But you also have been -- you've worked really closely -- like you said, you were the chief policy adviser for the House. And so what are your -- what's your position on taxes, in a business and personal taxes?

EVAN: Oh, on businesses, I think we need to lower the corporate tax rate. I said 20 percent. The reason that's important is we need our businesses to be able to reinvest in technology and in equipment and in jobs. That will make our workers more productive, which will mean their salaries will go up, which will mean other companies will want to be here because --

PAT: So you're saying you're going to force companies to come back to the United States of America.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: What do you think of that idea, Evan? What do you think of that idea, forcing companies, government forcing companies to come back?

EVAN: Well, so let's take a look at Donald Trump's idea, right? So he says, okay. Company X moves to Mexico and starts producing its wages there. So he's going to put a tariff on widgets that come from that company into the United States.

Guess what's going to happen? That country -- or, that company is just going to go to another country where those tariffs don't exist and produce the widgets there. I mean, that's -- it's just so ridiculous. What we want to do is have an open economy that attracts people, companies willingly to come here. That's how we've thrived in the past. That's what we need in the future.

STU: Evan, it's Stu again.

I had an interesting thought or realization the other day, I think, which was, we had this really big debate. We all fought about it in 2009, over this -- Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. We all thought it was a terrible idea. And 787 billion, you can remember it because we said it so many times, it was such a big number.

We have Hillary Clinton now proposing a new $275 billion stimulus, which no one has talked about at all, and probably because Donald Trump has promised to more than double it, over $550 billion.

He also proposed this new child care and family leave situation, paid for maternity leave and things like that paid for by the government, that the new estimate that just came out from a right-leaning think tank was $680 billion in cost.

We fought so hard against the $787 billion stimulus, but no one is thinking about these sorts of things anymore.

What is your approach on government spending to stimulate the economy and for new entitlement programs?

EVAN: Oh, my goodness. Well, listen, on stimulating the economy, I just have so much faith in the ingenuity of the American, in the -- just the grit that Americans have to create and to build. And that's the strength of our economy. It doesn't come from the government. And the more we think it does and the more we use entitlements and other programs to try to spur economic growth through the government, the less free our economy is. The less open it is. The less competition we have. The less innovation we have. So, look, it's just a fundamental thing.

In order to thrive, we've got to -- we've got to create an environment where people will take risks, where people will innovate. And we can't do that if we're growing the size of government. Therefore, taxing people more. Therefore, depriving people of their economic liberty, which is just liberty. And all of these things are connected.

So new entitlement programs, no, thank you. We need to reform the ones that we have. We do have some important programs that form an important safety net. But they're on autopilot. Congress doesn't even review this spending on an annual basis, if ever. Hardly ever they do.

And right now, it's over -- entitlement programs and our interest on debt that we pay every year is over two-thirds of the budget. If we do nothing, if we stay on our current path, it will be 78 percent of the budget in ten years.

And so we've got to make reforms. And we can do that so that we keep our obligations to people who are retired now and who are retiring soon.

But for people like me who have got decades more of work, let's -- you know, we're going to live longer. Let's increase the retirement age gradually, let's phase it in. And I think we need to do means testing too -- if I'm super wealthy, which I'm not, but if I were, I wouldn't need to collect Social Security. Let's make sure that we have that safety net for people who really need it. Let's just be smarter with our entitlements so we don't burden the American people with an overwhelming -- an overwhelming amount of debt and taxes.

GLENN: Okay. So, Evan, are you available tomorrow at about this time? Do you know? Can you make yourself available?

EVAN: I'll have to check with my team. But I would love --

GLENN: See if you can make yourself available. Here's what I'd like -- because here's what I've heard from you. I've heard a lot of great things, but I've heard your resume. And I can think like the person at home. And they -- what they've heard is, wow, okay. He's got some great background stuff. But on the flip side, you are former CIA, which can mean I'm for foreign involvement everywhere, entanglements, war, yada, yada. Continuation of what we've already done. Two, I used to work at Goldman Sachs, which means to some people I'm for the bank bailouts and cronyism and Wall Street and the fed.

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: I know. I know. I'm just -- but this is what I think your resume screams.

And then the last one is, I also was with the House. Well, the House was for stimulus and the bailouts. And they didn't repeal Obamacare. A lot of people in the G.O.P. despise the American -- you know, the average American. And so what I would like to do, because I don't think it's fair to ask you -- to throw that on you and then say, can you give me a two-minute answer.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Can you come back tomorrow and tell me what sets you apart in foreign policy from the -- the entanglements that have caused this mess --

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: The Goldman Sachs that are for the cronyism and the bank bailouts and the Federal Reserve just being -- running unchecked, and the House Republicans, what sets you apart from those three things that we hear in your resume? Would you do that?

EVAN: Well, I would love to come back. I just -- because, you know, Glenn, I don't control my schedule.

GLENN: I know. I know.

EVAN: But I will check with my team. I would love to come back. Chances are, we'll do it because this is an important, you know, discussion to have.

But very briefly, I'll just say, on foreign policy, I have said that I think the Iraq War was a mistake. I believe we do need to lead in the world. But I believe we can do it with less blood and treasure. And we can talk about that. I'm happy to talk about that.

With regard to my time at Goldman Sachs, look, I'm not here to represent Goldman Sachs. But I struggled -- I was raised in a lower middle class family. You know, we couldn't turn the heat on in the winter. We worked very, very hard. Parents worked three jobs. I know what it's like out there. And, you know, I'm not wealthy. I've worked hard for everything I have. And I had an opportunity to work at Goldman Sachs. And I learned a ton. I'm not here to defend Goldman Sachs in any way or the bank bailout, which I opposed and all of that.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: But I will say that I learned things there that every president should know, period.

As far as my time in the House, look, I was asked to come back and serve. I answered that with a yes, and I did come back and I served. I fought unauthorized spending. I fought mandatory spending. I fought to reform the VA's health care system.

You know, you got to engage. And, you know, that's what I've done. And I've served for most of my life this country.

GLENN: Okay. So tomorrow, if you can, and if not, we'll schedule it some other time, but if you can, I'd like you to focus -- we'll spend the same amount of time, and I'd like to focus on those three things: Foreign entanglements, the cronyism of capitalism and Goldman Sachs kind of image, and where you differ from the House Republicans, which we have -- I feel this audience has fought those guys perhaps harder than we had to fight the Obama administration. And we'll continue the conversation.

EVAN: Yeah, yeah. All right. Looking forward to it.

GLENN: What's your website? Evan, what's your website?

EVAN: Yes. Yes. It's EvanMcMullin.com. And if you want to go to that principled document, which I hope you will, go to EvanMcMullin.com/principles. And you spell McMullin with an I-N at the end, not an E-N. EvanMcMullin.com.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Evan. I appreciate it. You should buy the E-N domain name too. You should get EggMcMuffin.com

PAT: Have them all. Yes.

GLENN: You should have them all. Anyway, now, this.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin talks to to the media after announcing his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

Fort Knox exposed: Is America's gold MISSING?

Christopher Furlong / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump promised that we would get a peek inside Fort Knox, but are we ready for what we might find?

In this new era of radical transparency, the possibility that the Deep State's darkest secrets could be exposed has many desperate for answers to old questions. Recently, Glenn has zeroed in on gold, specifically America's gold reserves, which are supposed to be locked away inside the vaults of Fort Knox. According to the government, there are 147.3 million ounces of gold stored within several small secured rooms that are themselves locked behind a massive 22 ton vault door, but the truth is that no one has officially seen this gold since 1953. An audit is long overdue, and President Trump has already shown interest in the idea.

America's gold reserve has been surrounded by suspicion for the better part of a hundred years. It all started in 1933, when FDR effectivelynationalized the United States's private gold stores, forcing Americans to sell their gold to the government. This gold was melted down, forged into bars, and stored in the newly constructed U.S. Bullion Depository building at Fort Knox. By 1941, Fort Knox had held 649.6 million ounces of gold—which, you may have noticed, was 502.3 million ounces more than today. We'll come back to that.

By 1944, World War II was ending, and the Allies began planning how to rebuild Europe. The U.N. held a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the USD was established as the world's reserve currency. This meant that any country (though not U.S. citizens) could exchange the USD for gold at the fixed rate of $35 per ounce. Already, you can see where our gold might have gone.

Jump to the 1960s, where Lyndon B. Johnson was busy digging America into a massive debt hole. Between the Vietnam War and Johnson's "Great Society" project, the U.S. was bleeding cash and printing money to keep up. But now Fort Knox no longer held enough physical gold to cover the $35 an ounce rate promised by the Bretton Woods agreement. France took notice of this weakness and began to redeem hundreds of millions of dollars. In the 70s Nixon staunched this gushing wound by halting foreign nations from redeeming dollars for gold, but this had the adverse effect of ending the gold standard.

This brings us to the present, where inflation is through the roof, no one knows how much gold is actually inside Fort Knox, and someone in America has been buying a LOT of gold. Who is buying this gold? Where is it going and for what purpose? Glenn has a few ideas, and one of them is MUCH better than the other:

The path back to gold

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

One possibility is that all of this gold that has been flooding into America is in preparation for a shift back to a gold-backed, or partial-gold-backed system. The influx of gold corresponds with a comment recently made by Trump's new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, who said he was going to:

“Monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people.”

Glenn pointed out that per a 1972 law, the gold in Fort Knox is currently set at a fixed value of $42 an ounce. At the time of this writing, gold was valued at $2,912.09 an ounce, which is more than a 6,800 percent increase. If the U.S. stockpile was revalued to reflect current market prices, it could be used to stabilize the dollar. This could even mean a full, or partial return to the gold standard, depending on the amount of gold currently being imported.

Empty coffers—you will own nothing

Raymond Boyd / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, Glenn suspects there is another, darker purpose behind the recent gold hubbub.

As mentioned before, the last realaudit of Fort Knox was done under President Eisenhower, in 1953. While the audit passed, a report from the Secretary of the Treasury revealed that a mere 13.6 percent was checked. For the better part of a century, we've had no idea how much gold is present under Fort Knox. After the gold hemorrhage in the 60s, many were suspicious of the status of our gold supply. In the 80s, a wealthy businessman named Edward Durell released over a decade's worth of research that led him to conclude that Fort Knox was all but empty. In short, he claimed that the Federal Reserve had siphoned off all the gold and sold it to Europe.

What would it mean if America's coffers are empty? According to a post by X user Matt Smith that Glenn shared, empty coffers combined with an influx of foreign gold could represent the beginning of a new, controlled economy. We couldstill be headed towards a future where you'll ownnothing.

Glenn: The most important warning of your lifetime—AI is coming for you

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Artificial intelligence isn’t coming. It’s here. The future we once speculated about is no longer science fiction—it’s reality. Every aspect of our lives, from how we work to how we think, is about to change forever. And if you’re not ready for it, you’re already behind. This isn’t just another technological leap. This is the biggest shift humanity has ever faced.

The last call before the singularity

I've been ringing this bell for 30 years. Thirty years warning you about what’s coming. And now, here we are. This isn’t a drill. This isn’t some distant future. It’s happening now. If you don’t understand what’s at stake, you need to wake up—because we have officially crossed the event horizon of artificial intelligence.

What’s an event horizon? It’s the edge of a black hole—the point where you can’t escape, no matter how hard you try. AI is that black hole. The current is too strong. The waterfall is too close. If you haven’t been paying attention, you need to start right now. Because once we reach Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), there is no turning back.

You’ve heard me talk about this for decades. AI isn’t just a fancy Siri. It isn’t just ChatGPT. We are on the verge of machines that will outthink every human who has ever lived—combined. ASI won’t just process information—it will anticipate, decide, and act faster than any of us can comprehend. It will change everything about our world, about our lives.

And yet, the conversation around AI has been wrong. People think the real dangers are coming later—some distant dystopian nightmare. But we are already in it. We’ve passed the point where AI is just a tool. It’s becoming the master. And the people who don’t learn to use it now—who don’t understand it, who don’t prepare for it—are going to be swallowed whole.

I know what some of you are thinking: "Glenn, you’ve spent years warning us about AI, about how dangerous it is. And now you’re telling us to embrace it?" Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Because if you don’t use this tool—if you don’t learn to master it—then you will be at its mercy.

This is not an option anymore. This is survival.

How you must prepare—today

I need you to take AI seriously—right now. Not next year, not five years from now. This weekend.

Here’s what I want you to do: Open up one of these AI tools—Grok 3, ChatGPT, anything advanced—and start using it. If you’re a CEO, have it analyze your competitors. If you’re an artist, let it critique your work. If you’re a stay-at-home parent, have it optimize your budget. Ask it questions. Push it to its limits. Learn what it can do—because if you don’t, you will be left behind.

Let me be crystal clear: AI is not your friend. It’s not your partner. It’s not something to trust. AI is a shovel—an extremely powerful shovel, but still just a tool. And if you don’t understand that, you’re in trouble.

We’ve already seen what happens when we surrender to technology without thinking. Social media rewired our brains. Smartphones reshaped our culture. AI will do all that—and more. If you don’t take control now, AI will control you.

Ask yourself: When AI makes decisions for you—when it anticipates your needs before you even know them—at what point do you stop being the one in charge? At what point does AI stop being a tool and start being your master?

And that’s not even the worst of it. The next step—transhumanism—is coming. It will start with good intentions. Elon Musk is already developing implants to help people walk again. And that’s great. But where does it stop? What happens when people start “upgrading” themselves? What happens when people choose to merge with AI?

I know my answer. I won’t cross that line. But you’re going to have to decide for yourself. And if you don’t start preparing now, that decision will be made for you.


The final warning—act now or be left behind

I need you to hear me. This is not optional. This is not something you can ignore. AI is here. And if you don’t act now, you will be lost.

The next 18 months will change everything. People who don’t prepare—who don’t learn to use AI—will be scrambling to catch up. And they won’t catch up. The gap will be too wide. You’ll either be leading, or you’ll be swallowed whole.

So start this weekend. Learn it. Test it. Push it. Master it. Because the people who don’t? They will be the tools.

The decision is yours. But time is running out.

The coming AI economy and the collapse of traditional jobs

Think back to past technological revolutions. The industrial revolution put countless blacksmiths, carriage makers, and farmhands out of business. The internet wiped out entire industries, from travel agencies to brick-and-mortar retail. AI is bigger than all of those combined. This isn’t just about job automation—it’s about job obliteration.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers—people who thought their jobs were untouchable—will find themselves replaced by AI. A machine that can diagnose disease with greater accuracy, draft legal documents in seconds, or design infrastructure faster than an entire team of engineers will be cheaper, faster, and better than human labor. If you’re not preparing for that reality, you’re already falling behind.

What does this mean for you? It means constant adaptation. Every three to five years, you will need to redefine your role, retrain, and retool. The only people who survive this AI revolution will be the ones who understand its capabilities and learn to work with it, not against it.

The moral dilemma: When do you stop being human?

The real danger of AI isn’t just economic—it’s existential. When AI merges with humans, we will face an unprecedented question: At what point do we stop being human?

Think about it. If you implant a neural chip that gives you access to the entire internet in your mind, are you still the same person? If your thoughts are intertwined with AI-generated responses, where do you end and AI begins? This is the future we are hurtling toward, and few people are even asking the right questions.

I’m asking them now. And you should be too. Because that line—between human and machine—is coming fast. You need to decide now where you stand. Because once we cross it, there is no going back.

Final thoughts: Be a leader, not a follower

AI isn’t a passing trend. It’s not a gadget or a convenience. It is the most powerful force humanity has ever created. And if you don’t take the time to understand it now, you will be at its mercy.

This is the defining moment of our time. Will you be a master of AI? Or will you be mastered by it? The choice is yours. But if you wait too long, you won’t have a choice at all.

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

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

  • 45th in GDP Per Capita
  • 44th in Employment
  • 42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.