Cruz Sets the Immigration Record Straight With Megyn Kelly

January 29, 2016

WRITER

The Context

At last night's Fox News/Google GOP Debate in Iowa, Sen. Rubio did a song and dance with Sen. Cruz on immigration. Rubio accused Cruz of supporting a bill that Rubio himself authored as part of the so-called Gang of Eight, trying to make it look like Cruz had flip-flopped his stance on immigration policy. The bill in question allowed for citizenship and legalization. Cruz had introduced a series of amendments, each designed to fix problems in the bill, but the way he handled it keeps coming back to bite him.

The Poison Pill

Rubio's immigration reform bill allowed for both citizenship and legalization. Knowing the bill would not stand without one of those key issues, Cruz proposed an amendment to remove citizenship, leaving the option of legalization. It's what's called a "poison pill," making the bill completely undesirable to the opposition. Now Rubio is trying to say that Cruz was in favor of legalization. Cruz was never in favor of legalization --- and Sen. Rubio knows it.

For the Record

Marco Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight trying to pass immigration reform. It's an extremely complex issue, and he's used that complexity to his advantage this election season to muddy his opponents positions on immigration. Truth be told, Rubio is the candidate that supports giving citizenship and legalization to people who are currently in the U.S. illegally.

"I just can't believe that Marco Rubio is allowed to distort his own record so much," Glenn said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

The Kelly File

So, was Megyn Kelly's line of questioning during the debate foul? She presented a series of edited clips that made it appear Sen. Cruz had flip-flopped on the issue of immigration. However, in her follow-up interview (see below), she admitted Cruz's record did not support that argument, that he had been solid on the issue of immigration.

Common Sense Bottom Line

Ted Cruz has never supported amnesty and anyone who says otherwise is playing games. Rubio authored an immigration reform bill that included citizenship and legalization for illegals. Cruz tried to block it. For Rubio to paint Cruz as supporting legalization is blatantly false.

Listen to the exchange on immigration between Megyn Kelly and Senator Cruz, beginning at about 3:45:

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

GLENN: Let's go to Mo in California. Hello, Mo.

CALLER: Well, good morning. Thank you guys so much for all you're doing. You know, I have a unique perspective. I listen to all these debates on the radio because I'm always driving. So I'm on the road a lot. I live in California.

I'm a Christian conservative. I've got seven kids, five in the military. I've served myself. So I started out a Ben Carson guy. And I always loved Ted. Now I'm a big Ted fan. I kind of switched over to Ted. I don't think last night did him any favors. I was really concerned with some of the -- him and Rubio -- Marco too, some of the clips they played, I didn't watch the clips, I had to hear them. But by listening to what they were saying, they really did a job on him. He really came across as kind of flippy-floppy. Not what I expected. I was kind of surprised. I do the best I can to read. I listen to you guys all the time. I try to keep as informed as I can. I didn't realize there was a history of changing positions and not being -- I really thought Ted was a lot more solid. I still will vote for him, no doubt.

PAT: He is solid actually.

GLENN: He is. In fact, I want to play the audio because after the debate, Megyn Kelly came up to him -- right after the chute. And she said, "Let's go over this again." Because I don't know what the hell is wrong with Ted on this. He has the best reason for doing this. And he eventually got to it with Megyn Kelly.

PAT: It took a long time though.

GLENN: But it really took a long time.

PAT: And we've looked into this. We've dug into this really deeply. We wanted to know ourselves. And he's got a reasonable explanation for it.

GLENN: I think he just doesn't want to say, "I put a poison pill out."

PAT: He doesn't.

GLENN: But that's exactly what he did, and he admitted that finally with Megyn Kelly last night. But by then, I think the damage was done. But we'll play that really fascinating interview with Megyn Kelly immediately following the debate. Next.

(OUT AT 8:33AM)

GLENN: This is the exchange with Megyn Kelly right after the debate with Ted Cruz. Listen to this.

MEGYN: Was that all an act? It was pretty convincing.

TED: You know, the amendment you're talking about is one sentence. It's 38 words. Anyone can go online on TedCruz.org and read exactly what it said. In those 38 words, it said, "Anyone here illegally is permanently ineligible for citizenship." It didn't say a word about legalization.

MEGYN: But the bill allowed both. The bill you were amending allowed citizenship and legal- --

TED: But, Megyn, the bill was 1,000 pages. I introduced a series of amendments, each designed to fix problems in the bill. The fact that each amendment didn't fix every problem didn't mean that I supported the rest of the bill.

PAT: So that was the exchange.

MEGYN: So what I was trying to get at there was, you know, the bill offered both, legalization and citizenship. And you tried to take away citizenship, which would have allowed legalization still.

But, I mean, I look back at your record a lot to see, "Did Ted Cruz really want legalization, or didn't he?" I think the record supports you, that you did not want it.

PAT: And to your point, Stu, where was that during the debate?

STU: Yeah, I like Megyn Kelly. I think she did generally a good job. This moment bothered me a little bit because she made this big montage of these clips that were like cut up in real short segments.

PAT: That made him look bad.

STU: And said, "What were you doing, just acting out there? What was the deal?"

PAT: Making him look like a flip-flopper.

GLENN: I think that's her job though. As a person in the debate, you're not supposed to -- Chris Wallace was like, "Marco Rubio, that's Ted Cruz over there. Get him." Where a job is not to flip it one way or the other. It's to present it and say, "What were you doing there? What is that? Was that a good piece of acting, or did you mean something different?" I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

STU: I just think if she went through the work and realized and came to the conclusion that he did not support this amnesty in this particular bill, it just seems to me like that should be at least a mention in -- as you're discussing it. You know, she comes here and says multiple times, "I looked at your record. You did not want amnesty. So what's the deal with the parliamentary tricks?"

I mean, that's a fair question. I think he should have to answer that, why did he do it? That's fine. But she did the homework and she came to the come conclusion that he didn't want amnesty, and the way the question came off, to me, at least was like, "Hey, you obviously wanted amnesty and then now -- and now you're saying you didn't."

Again, I'm not blaming her that she did a terrible job or anything by any means. I think she did a good job. I just wish that was part of the question. I think a lot of people in Iowa are saying, "Wow. I just saw 19 clips edited very tightly with very little context." And now Ted is sitting there saying, "Well, look, this is what I tried to do." It seems like he's on the defensive. When Megyn Kelly herself, the person asking the question, has done the math and found out that it wasn't true.

PAT: Knew the answer. Yeah.

GLENN: All right. Play the rest.

MEGYN: It does. That it really was a poison pill amendment. What I was trying to get to you was, it just seems weird for the average person to see, like, the acting when you're trying to sell it, saying I want the bill to pass.

TED: But no, no. What I said was I wanted immigration reform to pass.

MEGYN: You also said the bill.

TED: I didn't say I want the bill to pass.

MEGYN: You did. I have it. I played it. That was the very first sound bite we played. The very first one.

TED: What I said was I want immigration reform to pass, and I've laid out on my website an 11-page very, very detailed immigration plan that I would like to have passed. We've got to secure the borders. We've got to stop illegal immigration.

MEGYN: You were talking about people coming out of the shadows. It seems like acting.

TED: Well, look, what I often do, particularly when debating Democrats -- and I was debating Chuck Schumer there -- is use the language of the Democrats to show their hypocrisy. Because, you know what, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats talked about people coming under the shadows. But it wasn't about that. It was about votes.

MEGYN: And they were saying at the time that it wasn't about citizenship. And you were trying to put the lie to that? Is that the --

TED: Yes. Right.

MEGYN: As I read your testimonials on this, that's how I read it.

GLENN: Yes.

TED: No, that's exactly right. They said it was all about bringing people out of the shadows. And I said, "Well, great. Then you should be happy to take citizenship off the table." And, of course, Chuck Schumer responded, "If there is no citizenship, there is no reform. We'll kill the whole thing." And, you know, there's an old joke that the new politically correct term for illegal aliens is now undocumented Democrats. This was about votes. And that amendment laid that there. And when the hypocrisy was shown to the American people, that's one of the reasons we were able to kill it.

MEGYN: I got it.

TED: It's why Jeff Sessions said if it wasn't for Cruz -- he said, "If Ted wasn't there, they would have passed."

MEGYN: I thought is he lying about this poison pill thing? The record supports you that it was a poison pill.

PAT: Well, there you go. It took a long time to get to. But it was a poison pill. And he was doing parliamentary, he was playing parliamentary politics. He was trying to show the hypocrisy of the left.

GLENN: He was doing exactly what we said he was doing about three months ago.

PAT: Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: Because we looked at it as well.

PAT: And, by the way, Marco Rubio was part of that. They were part -- he was part of the Gang of Eight trying to get that bill passed. He helped write it.

GLENN: But I just can't believe that Marco Rubio is allowed to distort his own record so much.

PAT: I know. I know.

STU: It is comical.

PAT: It's amazing.

GLENN: He's flipped him.

STU: What Rubio was accusing Cruz of inaccurately is -- as an attack --

PAT: Is what he has done?

STU: He's like, "You, jerk, you used to believe the thing that I believed."

PAT: Right.

STU: It's like, wait a minute. So you're saying -- your attack against him is that he may have supported part of the bill that you wrote. That's not -- that shouldn't be a good attack. But it seemed -- it seems to be --

PAT: It's weird that it seems to be working.

STU: You could argue I guess that it's just people trying to hide their record or something, and that's what he's attacking. But the huge negative you'd be accusing Cruz of was saying the same thing you believed then too. And, by the way, that's not true.

PAT: And part of what Rubio said last night was that Cruz is now trying to out-Trump, Trump. Well, Trump is for a path to citizenship. Trump has been the one that's been trumpeting, there's got to be a way for these people to become legal citizens.

STU: You can't kick out people who have been living here 20 years. You can't do that. You can't get them all.

PAT: He just said that.

GLENN: Do you have the audio of that?

PAT: Yeah, I'll have to find that.

GLENN: 68 percent of Iowans still have not made up their mind.

STU: It's amazing.

GLENN: It really is. It really is. This is the weekend most people begin to make their mind up in Iowa, studies show. Tomorrow and the next day.

Featured Image: Fox News anchor and debate moderator Megyn Kelly speaks with Republican Presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) after the Republican Presidential debate sponsored by Fox News and Google at the Iowa Events Center on January 28, 2016 in Des Moines, Iowa. The Democratic and Republican Iowa Caucuses, the first step in nominating a presidential candidate from each party, will take place on February 1. (Photo by Joe Raedle/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 effectively nationalized 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

I believe Trump is playing 4-D chess with Zelenskyy. pic.twitter.com/L19RtQdCF6
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck)
March 3, 2025

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.

Glenn's Show Prep