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

What Romney should say tonight

October 03, 2012
Wilson

Writer

If you had asked Glenn six months ago what the GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's approach in tonight's debate should be, he would have had a difference answer than he did this morning.

"You know, six months ago you got to go after him.  You've got to go after him.  I don't think you do," Glenn told listeners this morning.

This morning Glenn gave the points that he believes Mitt Romney should make during tonight's debate. They aren't points that discuss his radical past or Marxist tendencies.

If Glenn were Mitt Romney, here's exactly what he would say tonight —and it may surprise you.

"Mr. President none of the things you've said about me are true.  You've even admitted to lies and mistakes in your approved ads in your 60 minute interview," Glenn started.

"Tonight, Mr. President that should not happen because it's not about politics. It's about our country, and it's about credible.  Whom can we trust anymore? 

The American people don't trust the news media.  They don't trust the Republicans.  And they don't trust the Democrats.  They don't trust you.  And they don't trust me.  But they're going to go in and make a decision."

"Whom do they trust Mr. President? Whom do they trust?"

"Let's look at some of the facts."

"You attacked my record at Bain, yet in every single case I wasn't even at the company when you accused of layoffs and outsourcing in every single case. 

You went so far to post a story from the poor man who lost his wife to cancer on your website, and Stephanie Cutter hosted him on one of your campaign conference calls.  So this isn't something from a super PAC that you had no control over it was on your website.  You tried to use the story that it was me who laid him off, so he lost his job and lost his insurance.  And then his wife got cancer, and died.  Instead, the truth is — because that's what this has to be about Mr. President, and the American people need to know the truth — the truth is, he lost his job after I left the company.  His wife went on her own company's insurance, then dropped it, then got sick. And then, seven years after I was involved with this man or his family, seven years after I left the company, she got cancer, and died. 

That's a tragic story not only for that family but, Mr. President, that is a tragic story of an American President without any credibility. 

You and your surrogates have accused me of not paying my taxes, even when an organization that has 8% of the population saying, "no I can trust the news from the "New York Times" — 8%.  Even the New York Times says, "the President is wrong." 

You continue to claim I haven't released my tax information.  I have.  I have released my tax information for the past two years, as much as Ronald Reagan did. And I released the summary tax information going back 20 years.  To illustrate the futility of releasing this tax information, last week, when I had discovered I paid more tax than I needed to I was attacked for that even though you harp on the fact that you want the wealthy to pay more. "Pay their "fair share."  I paid more and your people attacked. 

Then you went around and attacked me when I did pay $500,000 more than I was paying and that's just the beginning of it.  Because your constantly attacking me and anyone who has earned their money.  You've constantly attacked my wealth.  Yes, I have been successful. Since when — since when has that been a curse in America and not a blessing? 

With that wealth I have helped to bless the lives of others: through employment, investment opportunities and charity.  One of the revelations in my taxes, if you care to look, is that last year I donated 30% of my income — that's four million dollars — to charity.  I didn't wait for the government to act.  I knew people were hurting and needed help. We're in a tough time.  Charities are hurting for cash.  I upped my charity." 

"Let me break out of Mitt Romney for a second," Glenn interjected,  "Because the man in me would say, "now up yours."  But that would be inappropriate." 

"Why would I up my charity? Because I am my brother's keeper, not the government. 

And that's the difference between the two of us. 

You've taken a phrase I have used and you took it out of context.  This is a choice that America has to make.  Whom do you trust?

About 47% of Americans, I said, aren't paying taxes.  To claim I wouldn't care about half the country if elected is ridiculous.  That's what you said.  Mr. President, you know that's disingenuous at best.  I was referring to the fact that I can't worry about getting their votes.  Not that I don't care about them as human beings or their struggles. 

You know that Mr. President, we're adults.  You've alleged that I never struggled and I don't care about hardworking Americans.  Mr. President, I've worked long and hard to get where I am today, as has my wife.  As far as caring for people, I've never been comfortable extolling the work I've done for others.  Let's just suffice that I have personally given my time, my council, and my money to help people of all income levels in all stages of life.  I've been doing that my entire life.  I was raised that way. 

Service is in my D.N.A.. 

The fundamental difference between us is you have turned that responsibility over to government agencies.  You believe your job is to fight for bigger government who will in turn fight for the people.  I believe that it is my job to fight for the people.  It's more of a direct line but I learned that in business. 

I believe it's my responsibility to get involved.  I believe it is your responsibility to get -- you believe that it's your responsibility to get the involved with other people's time and money.  I believe people should make that decision themselves.  But it's not just about what you've said about me and the lies you've said.  That just has to be said because it is a contest between the two of us.  But that's not something we should dwell on.  We spend tonight's hour on is what you have done. 

Mr. President you promised to cut the deficit in half by now.  I know it's evil George Bush's fault but you've had four years.  This year's deficit is the largest in the history of the planet earth.  It's $1,275,800,000,000. You've added more to the national debt in four years than President Bush did in eight.  You called his efforts unpatriotic.  What does that make yours, sir. 

You promised to close Gitmo.  You didn't.  You promised not to hire lobbyists.  You hired 17 within the first two weeks.  You promised to allow five days of public comment before signing any bills.  That hasn't happened.  You promised to televise healthcare care.  You didn't.  It was all behind closed doors.  It was with special interest groups.  You promised healthcare care costs would decrease.  What has happened.  They're up 25%.  You promised Americans if they liked their healthcare plan they'd be able to keep it.  Up to 30% of employers have dropped or plan to drop out of their healthcare when Obamacare is fully implemented because they can't afford it anymore.  You promised to reduce earmarks to 1994 levels.  Nope.  They continue.  You promised that if you make less less than $250,000 none of your taxes will increase.  Obamacare will raise taxes on million on Americas.  Plainly centered around those that are making $55,000 a year not to mention the smoking tax.  The tanning tax, and uninsured.  You said that Obamacare mandate was not a tax.  And then your people went in and argued to the Supreme Court it was a tax. 

You promised that the world would respect and love us again.  Instead our allies have no idea where we stand.  Instead our enemies are emboldened.  The middle is on fire.  And our embassies interest and people in the Middle East are under siege.  This White House, this White House has lied to the American people just on Libya enough. 

You promised over and over again jobs, those three little letters was job number one.  Say what you will about your efforts of creating and saving jobs but unemployment has been above 8% for 42 straight months.  There's 80 million unemployed or under employed in this country.  I don't care about the 47%.  Mr. President I'd like to give these people dignity by giving them a job not another government program.  You promised to take responsibility.  You haven't.  You blame Bush for absolutely everything.  And then when you can't blame Bush let's go back to the Libya.  You've blamed everybody from the Navy SEALs.  Or should we blame Gerald R. Ford for everything.  You promised a new tone Mr. President. 

The tone is not as bad it's much, much worse.  You'll have a book fair with Hugo Chavez but you have no time to meet with anyone who opposes you. 

Mr. President, millions of Americans hope for change.  The same change they hoped for last time and then didn't get it.  What they got was more of the same.  But they got deceit in record numbers.  They're footing the bill.  They're working hard.  Too many Americans think Washington is playing a game and we're spending their future. 

There is one thing Mr. President I do agree with you on.  You told Matt Lauer before you were elected if I don't have this done in three years this is going to be a one term proposition. 

And with that Mr. Moderator I'll end my one point of unity and agreement with my opponent. 

I think Mitt Romney needs to be -- needs to rinse all of the sarcasm out of my delivery and needs to be laser focused on the facts and absolutely laser focused on the impact on the American people. 

Mr. President we're here to talk about the domestic policy.  There is nothing more crucial to domestic policy that the mom who's taking her kids to soccer practice and ballet, and has to stop at the gas station.  Because of your policies in the Middle East, offshore drilling, the keystone pipeline, there's nothing more relevant to them than the cost of gasoline.  It's doubled since you've been in office.  The guy you appointed as secretary of energy said that he was hoping for 8 dollars a gallon gasoline.  He retracted that as soon as he got into office.  That doesn't make sense unless you're playing a media game and lying to the American people again because you said your policies would make electricity costs necessarily skyrocket.  So for fairness, you don't have a problem with that.  Mr. President, have you gone to the coal miners, and have you talked to the coal miners in Ohio, West Virginia, people who have been Democrats for their entire life.  They think quite honestly you are just a nightmare.  Why? 

Mr. President, why have you shut out of 500 coal fire plants, you've shut down 100.  Now I understand we all want to be clean, and but we have to have energy, and we can't -- you want to talk about 47% who cares about the 47%.  The one who's going to make their electricity prices necessarily skyrocket how is the 47% going to be able to afford that? Or are you developing another program for another handout and another ticket to slavery?  When we have technology that will replace 50% of our electricity I'm fine — I'm fine.  I'd like to get rid of them too.  I'm not sitting here fighting for the Stanley steamer. 

New technology let's embrace it.  But we don't have it yet Mr. President, and every time you invest you lose.  Every time you've taken the hard earned money from the pockets of people you say it's a bad thing it's a bad thing we should have Social Security be able to have the people invest their own money with a chance that maybe they get a higher return.  Why? Because you say that's not right because they might lose it all.  Stocks are risky thing.  Yet you take the money from their taxes and you invest it in the riskiest of things, and then you say we got a bet. 

This isn't Vegas.  This is the United States of America and it's Washington D.C.  We're supposed to have trust.  America doesn't trust any of us in Washington with their money.  Nor should they."

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: