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

Is MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski Turning Conservative?

November 30, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

An amazing shifting is taking place, and the mainstream media doesn't seem to recognize it. Ironically, the left and the media are sounding like the Tea Party did in 2008 and 2012, lamenting about their constitutional rights disappearing.

"If I wanted to be a jerk, I would say, Really? Can you tell me which rights have disappeared? Because isn't that what they've said to us for the last eight years? We can't play that game anymore," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

Another shift taking place is a new open-mindedness and objectivity among a minority on the left.

RELATED: Former Progressive Caller Josh Reveals His Incredible Transformation After Reading ‘Liars’

MSNBC news anchor Mika Brzezinski has, on several occasions, expressed her concern about double standards on the left while looking for new ways to communicate about and approach issues. Brzezinski recently voiced her displeasure with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), saying she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

Is Brzezinski turning into a conservative? No, of course not. She's just changing her approach, her tone.

"That is critical, just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing," Glenn said.

The bottom line is that we need each other. We need to be approachable to the other side and listen to the opinions of others.

"I don't mean that you change your principles. I haven't changed --- people believe I have --- but I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: This is an amazing thing. I'm now reading articles about how the Hollywood left is -- they're buying luxury bunkers. And what is it that these people know that the rest of us don't seem to know? All of a sudden now preparing is also kind of cool for -- for the left, I guess.

Now there's a reason to hunker down. To me, this says, we can make the case that the presidential powers are far too great. That if half of the country is terrified under a Democrat and then we -- and then we replace him with a Republican and the other half is terrified, would he give you a problem.

PAT: And, gee, who said that, "Don't give those powers to the president because you're not going to like it eventually?"

GLENN: We said that during Bush. We said that during Bush.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: This is the real problem. I want to get into this here in just a second, but I want to start with a phone call that we had yesterday that I think is -- I mean, we had so much mail and so many Facebook comments on this because it shows that, A, there is hope and that people are open-minded if you present yourself the right way.

Listen to this.

CALLER: Let me start off this way, I was a very, very progressive liberal, almost to the point of communism. I believed everybody should be -- you know, in the wage gap and everything. So a buddy of mine that I've known since I got out of the Army, he -- he came to me one day and gave me your book. One of your books. And he says -- he said, "You've got to read this."

GLENN: Which one?

CALLER: Liars.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: And he said, "You've got to read this book." And I said, "Oh, come on. Really?"

And, "No, you've got to read this book. You'll never believe the some of the stuff that's in it."

So he told me the first chapter to go to. And it was in August, so I can't remember, to be honest, what chapter it was.

But it was the part of the book where it talked about how they -- with Prohibition.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And how they put poison in the alcohol to find out the tracking routes of where it was going.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: So I read that, and my jaw hit the floor.

GLENN: You looked it up too, didn't you? You didn't believe --

CALLER: I did. And I finished that book in three days. It was the most amazing book I've ever read. And I said, "I've got to do more research on this, and I've got to find out who this Glenn Beck guy is." So I went to YouTube.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

CALLER: And I searched your name and I found a video that you did on TheBlaze. I don't know how long it was. But you spoke to a guy that was an alcoholic. And you talked to him about some -- I forget who said it. It was to Peter Carr.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And the statement was, "Set reason firmly in her seat, and question with boldness the very existence of God. For if there is a God, he must rather honest questioning over blind-folded fear." I will never forget that statement. Because that statement brought me to Christ.

I was an atheist before that.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow. So you were a communist, an atheist?

CALLER: Yeah.

PAT: And how long ago was this, Josh?

GLENN: He said August.

CALLER: I got that book on August 15th of this year.

PAT: Of this year! Wow, that's --

CALLER: Yeah, I voted for Barack Obama twice. I'm sorry, but I did.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Wow.

CALLER: And I would have voted for Hillary Clinton with vigor. However, I pulled the lever for Evan McMullin this year.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: You didn't even go -- oh, my gosh.

CALLER: And I have never, ever, ever -- I'm telling you -- I want to be as serious as I can with you, Glenn, because this is a dream of mine, to speak to you since August. I have never, ever realized the difference -- I thought all conservatives hated me. I thought conservatism was hate -- was complete hate, until I listened to you.

PAT: Wow. That's --

GLENN: This is -- this is a dream come true. This has made the last year totally worth it.

Before we go back to this phone call, because we talked about -- we talked about a few things with him on what -- how -- because that's quite a statement to make. But I want to -- I want to shift gears. And can we go to Mika and what Mika said on MSNBC? Was this today or yesterday?

PAT: I think it was yesterday.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to this.

VOICE: And you have Elizabeth Warren who is stepping out and basically looking like she's going to be the de facto head of the Democratic Party nationally. That is a --

VOICE: Yeah.

MIKA: Do you lead on anger though? Because that doesn't seem very constructive to me.

I got to tell you, I love her. I'm getting tired of this act.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: She's definitely giving voice to the people in the party and in the country who think Donald Trump is a disaster for the country. She's going to be out every day --

MIKA: Yeah. But you know what, there's a huge part of the country that doesn't think so.

VOICE: Right.

MIKA: And she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

I mean, she's just got to stop. I'm sorry. It's getting exhausting. And this was not helpful during the campaign. It wasn't. There was an anger there that was shrill and --

PAT: Uh-huh.

MIKA: -- and a step above what it needed to be, unmeasured, and almost unhinged.

PAT: How about that?

GLENN: Now, listen, what people will want to say, on our side is, wow, is Mika turning a conservative? No. No.

PAT: She's changing her tone.

GLENN: She's changing her tone. That is critical. Just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing. And obviously, at least for one person, it was successful.

We tried to say, "Look, this isn't a Democratic problem. This is a Democratic and Republican problem. And this is not a liberal problem. This is a human problem."

PAT: And nothing proves better what you've been trying to say for a while now better than this. Because how did that make all of us feel? Everybody listen I objecting to that went, "Wow, thank you. Thank you for being a little bit reasonable and seeing the other side."

GLENN: And honest. And honest.

PAT: And honest.

Well, so if we did the same thing, how will the left feel?

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And you're not going to get everybody on the left. You're not going to get the die-hards. You're not going to get the die-hards. But the die-hards eventually --

PAT: Some reasonable people might be able to come --

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: On both sides.

GLENN: And the die-hards will eventually be the absolute outer fringes that no one will listen to.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Another great example of this was David Axelrod, of all people.

PAT: Right.

STU: Who was in the Obama administration obviously. A real hard-core partisan and hasn't changed his beliefs. But while Trump was getting beat up for not naming his people fast enough in his cabinet, Axlerod came out and said, "Wait a minute. By this time in our administration, we hadn't named anybody, and I don't remember any criticism." We need more of that.

PAT: A little honesty. A little bit of honesty goes a really long way.

GLENN: Right. Right.

And if we can -- if the right can lead the way in this -- if we can not play the same game and not trash our enemies because they're our enemies, but call them as we see them -- not remain silent when an injustice is happening. Let me give you one. Let me show you an example.

Right now, you have Breitbart being boycotted. Well, first of all, I don't believe that Kellogg's was ever a major sponsor of Breitbart. Maybe. But I don't ever remember seeing Kellogg's Corn Flakes all over. And this was done to us.

There were people that would say they were going to boycott us, that never spent money with us. We were never on part of their buy. They never would have.

PAT: And everybody counted it, "That's the 37th sponsor." Yeah, like eight of them. Four of them. One of them was a sponsor before.

GLENN: Right. Right. Really, most of them were like BMW will never advertise -- well, they never advertise on talk radio. They've never advertised with me before.

So, A, I think this is the press doing to Breitbart what the press did to us. What the left did to us. I don't believe that that -- that boycott of Kellogg's is even real. But even if it is, let me make the case -- and everybody knows how I feel about Breitbart and Bannon. So I have nothing to gain here.

Let me tell you why I think it is a problem. I believe in legal boycotts. I believe you have the right to do it. It's a free market. You have a right to spend your money as a business or -- or an individual, any way you want. It's your money. So if you want to do a boycott, you can do a boycott.

But let me show you why it's not good: Breitbart, if the numbers are right -- and I'm trying to look this up. If the numbers were right, in the last 30 days, Breitbart claims they did 45 million next week.

That's a lot of people.

STU: That's a great number.

GLENN: That's a great number. And that's a lot of people.

Okay. So 45 million people -- Kellogg's, you're going to say, "I don't want any of you. I don't want any of you." Now, Breitbart has said they are the platform for the alt-right. Okay. That's a pretty big choice. To me, I'm not reading Breitbart anymore because I don't want to support something that has -- that says, "I'm going to give this group of people a platform." I don't agree with that. But 45 million people don't care. Forty-five million Americans.

Now, let me just give you this: Remember Richard Spencer. He's the guy who's the leader of the alt-right. He had a big get-together in Washington, DC. This was their big victory lap. How many people showed up?

JEFFY: I think it was like 80 million.

GLENN: Right. 80 million. Well, 45 million, right? Right. No. 275 people.

JEFFY: A little less than that.

GLENN: Yeah. 275 people showed up.

PAT: Yeah. Less than 45?

GLENN: Yeah, it is less than 45.

Now, you don't need 30 percent of the population for a real movement, but you need maybe -- well, definitely more than 275.

JEFFY: Yes.

(chuckling)

GLENN: The point is, Breitbart's audience is not alt-right. And this is the point the press has got to understand. They're all touting -- let me give you this: This is from The Daily Tar Heel. This is the newspaper for the University of North Carolina.

Here's their headline: We can -- this is the editorial board right --

PAT: Are they considered pretty liberal? Yeah?

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. This is the editorial board. We can all learn from Glenn Beck's change of heart.

And it goes in to say we're living in a world that is in perpetual status quo with different ideas for directions on where to go from the norm.

In many cases, the far right and silent majority have won, leaving many of those who generally aligned with that party, to be ecstatic.

It goes on to say -- I'm going to skip a bunch of. Regardless of which side you stand on these issues, let's praise Beck's open-mindedness to new ideas and perspectives.

Now, they are saying that I am praising Black Lives Matter.

PAT: That you've changed on certain things like Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: And I haven't. I haven't.

What I have done is what Mika has done and changed my tone. And I've said, "Let's listen." Not to the people who are praising Fidel and want an end to American capitalism, who are at the top of Black Lives Matter, but instead, the people on the street, who are not violent, who are not calling for death to cops, who just are wound up in this group that I believe is the majority of them. The majority of people that are saying, "You know what, at least Black Lives Matter is stepping up and getting people's attention.

I don't believe they want to destroy America. We need to listen to people who say, "No one is hearing me."

That -- now, by boycotting 45 million people that read Breitbart, what are you doing? You're saying, "You're not even worth listening to. You're not even worth marketing to. I never want to see you again." That's a mistake. Because .00001 percent of the people who read Breitbart are Nazis. Two hundred and seventy-five nazis showed up last week in Washington, DC.

PAT: Well, alt-right people, right?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I'm sorry --

PAT: I mean, they've got some of those tendencies perhaps.

GLENN: The 275, no, they were giving the Hitler salute. I will call them that.

PAT: Were they?

STU: No, they were saying hail -- hail Trump. That was their big excuse. They're like, it wasn't heil Trump, it was hail Trump.

GLENN: They actually did the Hitler salute and said hail Trump.

PAT: They said heil in English.

STU: Right.

PAT: Okay. Good. Good. That's unique.

GLENN: Completely differently. Completely different.

So I want to go back to this guy, but, again, the point of the phone call that came in yesterday and the point of Mika and the point of Liars, the book -- if you haven't read the book, we worked really hard on it. And it was a best-selling book, and it's really good. Please get it for Christmas, especially if you know somebody who has an open mind.

PAT: Like this guy.

GLENN: Right. And may I suggest that we need an open mind, that we need to be approachable to people on the left. I don't mean that you -- that you change your principles. I -- I haven't changed -- people believe I have. I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places.

We need each other. We need to be able to listen to each other. We need to be able to -- how many of us had a Thanksgiving where we just couldn't stand sitting at the table with our own relatives for political reasons? I understand not wanting to sit at the table for other reasons with your family, but not for political reasons.

Featured Image: Host Mika Brzezinski speaks on stage during the Women In The World Summit held in New York on April 24, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Toth/Getty Images)

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:

The BIZZARE connection between the Vegas Cybertruck bomber and mystery drones

CHANDAN KHANNA / Contributor, Paula Bronstein / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, in recent times Americans have become far too accustomed to tragic mass shootings and attacks.

But the Cybertruck bombing that occurred outside of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas earlier this month is different. Not only did the method and outcome of the attack differ from the begrudging norm, but the manifesto left behind tells a captivating and horrifying-if-true story that potentially sheds light on the most frustrating mystery of 2024. On his radio show, Glenn highlighted some of the strange and harrowing claims made by the bomber, and he was not convinced that they were just the ramblings of a madman.

What happened during the bombing? What did the bomber hope to achieve? And what does his manifesto potentially reveal about our government and the secrets they keep from us?

The bombing

Las Vegas Review-Journal / Contributor | Getty Images

On January 1st, 2025, a rented Tesla Cybertruck full of gas tanks, fireworks, and other explosives pulled up to the front door of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas. Just before 8:40 a.m., the truck exploded before bursting into flame, injuring seven nearby people, all of whom are in stable condition. Aside from the minor injuries and minimal damage to the hotel, the explosion was absorbed and redirected by the truck, with the only death being that of the bomber, who allegedly shot himself before triggering the explosion.

The bomber has been identified as a former Army Special Forces Master Sergeant with a promising military career. He had given no sign of his intentions to his family and friends before the attack, and according to the Pentagon, he showed no red flags. While there may not have been any obvious signs, Glenn speculated that the bomber may have been suffering from PTSD and/or a traumatic brain injury, which is backed by the Army's admission that the bomber had received counseling through its Preservation of the Force and Family program.

The manifesto

Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

Two different documents that were allegedly authored by the bomber have been discovered. The first was found on the bomber's phone and is composed of a list of grievances against the United States, a call to Americans to rally behind Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and an outline for a militia takeover of D.C.

The bomber also asserted that his attack was not an act of terrorism, but a "wake-up call" designed to attract attention, which he explained was the purpose behind the fireworks present in the explosion. He also claimed the attack was designed to "cleanse [his] mind" of the "brothers" he lost and the lives he took during his time in the Army, which further corroborates the theory that he was suffering from PTSD.

The second document was emailed to retired Army intelligence officer Sam Shoemate, who revealed its contents on The Shawn Ryan Show podcast. The bomber claimed the government was hunting him due to his knowledge of top-secret information relating to classified technologies. The bomber also alleged knowledge of war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the United States that resulted in the death of thousands of civilians.

The bomber's email gave several names and other information that he suggested could be used to verify his claims, but as of now, it is unclear how much, if any, of his story has been verified.

The connection

YELIM LEE / Contributor | Getty Images

Where do the mystery drones that have been plaguing the skies above New Jersey enter the story?

The bomber claimed the drones are operated by the Chinese and are a part of the same program that launched the spy balloon in 2023. He claimed these drones use a "gravitic" propulsion system, and are the most serious threat to national security due to their ability to transport an "unlimited payload" with unparalleled speed and stealth. He went on to claim that the drones originated from a Chinese submarine parked off the East Coast.

While these claims appear far-fetched, Glenn pointed out that if he is right about this, we are in grave danger. China or other foreign powers could have weapons of mass destruction parked over every major city, every military installation, or even the White House, and we would be powerless to stop them. We know our government lies to us regularly. Would anybody be surprised if they were hiding world-altering tech from us? Trump's reelection has given us another opportunity to demand answers and learn the truth.

Glenn: The Left's January 6th narrative doesn't hold four years later

Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times | Getty Images

Four years ago yesterday, the events of January 6th, 2021 unfolded—an event that the Left repeatedly said was the darkest day in our country's history. Yet, as time passes, the narrative surrounding that day has started to unravel, revealing uncomfortable truths that demand both explanation and accountability.

For millions of Americans, January 6th marked a dividing line, a day that deepened the fractures within our society. Emotions ran high, and trust in the institutions that were sworn to protect us was shattered, a portion of which will only be restored by dramatic action. This trust continues to erode as new details emerge, revealing gaping holes in the Left's narrative about January 6th.

The lies that surrounded the events of that day were not mere "misinformation"—they were bombshells that forced us to confront a much darker reality about our government’s actions. And these revelations must become the message we take from January 6th: the true nature of our current government, its accountability, and the lengths to which it will go to protect its version of events—even when it is a lie.

Let’s begin with the pipe bombs. On January 6th, Americans were told that two pipe bombs had been found near the RNC and DNC headquarters and that they could have caused catastrophic harm. The pipe bomb was placed at the DNC headquarters the night before January 6th. Interestingly, the security sweep of the building the next morning did not find it. Then Kamala Harris was transported in the height of January 6th. Conveniently, all the records detailing the event were “accidentally” deleted by the Secret Service.

Surveillance footage was ignored, cameras were turned just hours before the bombs were planted, and we were told that critical cell phone data was somehow “corrupted.” But it wasn't. The only thing that was corrupted was our own government and FBI. According to the cell phone companies, the FBI simply never asked for the information. Leads were never pursued. Four years later, the identity of the bomber remains a mystery.

Why would federal agencies neglect this critical investigation into an event that allegedly was going to destroy the republic or kill the future vice president? Was the lack of action intentional, perhaps a convenient distraction to justify escalating security measures and cast a broader shadow over what they hoped would unfold that day? These are not wild conspiracy theories; these are questions every citizen must ask. Because now we know that our government lied to us.

We must also address the FBI’s role on that fateful day. We’ve learned that 26 FBI informants were present on the ground during the events at the Capitol. Let that sink in. What were they doing there? Were they infiltrating the crowd? Were they acting as provocateurs? The presence of these informants raises serious questions about how much of the chaos that day was organic and how much of it was orchestrated. If the FBI had informants on the ground, why wasn’t the situation under control before it escalated?

Four years ago, I called for the protesters to stop. I said that this isn't who we are, and these people should go to jail. I still stand by the belief that if you hurt anyone, broke any windows, or damaged property, you should be held accountable and serve a just punishment. But today, I’m deeply concerned that many of those who were not violent or engaged in damage are still languishing in jail, some facing sentences of up to 20 years. What’s more disturbing is the growing evidence that the chaos that unfolded was not an accident—it was part of a broader agenda.

Amid the chaos, the finger was pointed squarely at one man: Donald Trump. But new information paints a vastly different picture. Just days before January 6th, President Trump authorized the deployment of the National Guard, citing concerns over potential unrest. Yet, his request was ignored—rejected outright by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police. Why? Who in the chain of command made the decision to disregard the president’s directive? Had the National Guard been allowed to deploy, it’s possible much of the mayhem that followed could have been prevented. But instead, that opportunity was squandered, and the media narrative was shaped to fit a political agenda—one that painted Trump as the instigator, when in fact, he sought to prevent the violence that ultimately occurred.

And then, there’s the tragic death of Ashley Babbitt. A decorated Air Force veteran, Babbitt was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to climb through a broken window. Her death was quickly ruled justified, and the officer involved was shielded from scrutiny. But now, we learn that the officer violated multiple procedural rules and could face criminal charges. Why was her death dismissed so quickly by both the media and the government? In an era where police actions are scrutinized heavily, why was this officer not held accountable?

As we look back, it's clear that January 6th was chiefly about the perversion of justice by the very institutions that were supposed to protect us. Big-tech corporations and global entities like telecoms and airlines offered up location data on innocent Americans who were simply in Washington, D.C., on January 6th. No warrants. No due process. They handed over personal data without question, and the FBI used it without hesitation.

What the FBI did with that data, how Americans there on that day didn't stand a chance in D.C. courts, how our politicians and federal law enforcement knew what was going on yet did nothing to prevent it, the calling off of the National Guard—what does this tell you about our country? Our government, our justice system, and our institutions were complicit in undermining the very principles they were created to uphold.

They are trying to create a system that thrives on division and chaos, a system that uses fear as a tool to control the American people. If the federal agencies can lie, manipulate, and withhold the truth about January 6th, what else are they capable of? What are they willing to do to maintain their grip on power?

Four years later, on the anniversary of January 6th, we must demand the truth—not the sanitized, politically convenient version. We deserve the full, unvarnished truth. We must hold accountable those in power who orchestrated, covered up, or ignored the events of that day. We must never allow the lies and the unanswered questions of January 6th to fade into the political ether. We must ensure that the truth is told and that those who lied to us are held accountable.