Is Virtual Reality the End of Civilization?

By 2025, there will likely exist a virtual reality suit with the ability to feel sensation and experience touch. How will that impact a person's actual reality?

"Imagine my life is just a piece of crap. I just go to work. I don't have a job that I like. I don't have any satisfaction. I just, you know, have a crappy life . . . but I can afford VR and the internet. I'll save up for this suit," Glenn speculated. "I'm just living for my paycheck to eat and to be able to pay for the internet and the services that I want."

With a VR suit, the user with the crappy life can now have a girlfriend who will learn all about him and be able to touch him. He'll have a virtual assistant, live in a palace and exist in a world created especially for him. What happens when he goes back to the real world?

"It's the end of civilization," Glenn said. "Tell me how you don't end up in the matrix?"

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 1 for answers to these questions:

• Are smart devices a friend or foe?

• Is the truth relative?

• Why are Google Home and Google Now better than Alexa?

• Have we already reached the point of no return with privacy and technology?

• Does Glenn have to ruin Jeffy's VR rollercoaster ride?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We're back. Welcome to the program.

Resolutions: Finland has just launched an experiment on, how can we give people money? Let's just give people a living wage, don't expect anything from them. Let's try it as an experiment. This actually -- this is not forever. This actually is an important experiment, and I'll explain why. You want to talk about big ideas, this is something that the world needs to see either fail or succeed because of what's coming by 2050. We'll explain coming up in just a second.

Also, we want to talk a little about the deaths over the last couple of weeks. The press -- I don't understand what CNN decides to do to their anchors every New Year's Eve. Don Lemon was weird.

PAT: It's really weird.

GLENN: And embarrassing. We'll talk about that.

Also, I want to start with this: Alexa, can you help me with this murder case? We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Well, thank you so much for listening and tuning in today. Amazon is pushing back against an Arkansas prosecutor's demand for information on what they have stored at Amazon from Alexa.

Now, here's -- here's the story: A guy died in a hot tub early in the morning. And they get a call and say, "Hey, my friend died. You know, four times the limit of alcohol in his blood. It was just an accident." And he's dead.

Police are concerned because there were signs of a struggle. There was a broken shot glass. There was some blood. But you could explain the blood and the shot glass. Right?

But there's a device in the home that is a smart meter for the water usage. And in the middle of the night, the water usage happens to use exactly the amount of water to drain and refill the hot tub.

So it looks as though something happened around the hot tub, and they drained it and then cleaned it up and then filled it back up.

So smart device, number one.

Now the police are saying, "Look, there's evidence here that something is not right. And we don't think it's an accident." And they have Amazon's Alexa.

Did anybody have Alexa or Google Home?

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: You do?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Shut up. You do not.

PAT: Yeah, we do.

GLENN: Do you really?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Do you like it?

PAT: No, it's terrible.

GLENN: It's terrible in the Siri way, or?

PAT: Yeah, it's terrible in the Siri way. I mean, it's worthless. We just got it recently. And I understand that it learns the kinds of things you're looking for and what you want, but right now, it's like, "I don't understand what you're asking me. I'll have to look that up. Hmm. I'll think about that." Shut up. It's -- like Siri. You know, Siri has those same issues. You ask it something, and it's like, "I can't find that on the Web."

JEFFY: I just got one as well, and it seems to be that it's hoping for better.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: In the future.

PAT: I understand Ok Google is better.

GLENN: What's Ok Google?

PAT: The Google Home.

JEFFY: Yeah. That's possible.

GLENN: Let's get one. Let's put one in the studio.

JEFFY: That would be great.

PAT: We should try both of them and get one each. See which one works better.

GLENN: I'm not putting one in my house.

JEFFY: You can order what you want from it. If you're an Amazon Prime customer, in this area --

PAT: We haven't used it for that yet.

JEFFY: Because this area, we're close to a huge Amazon outlet -- warehouse. You'll have it within hours.

GLENN: Yeah, here you'll have it within five hours. You go on Amazon Prime now, and they'll deliver it to you same day.

PAT: Well, the commercials say, "Hey, we need -- Alexa, we need more paper towels. Order more paper towels. Okay. Ordered."

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: I mean, that's pretty cool.

JEFFY: I know.

PAT: I haven't used it in that way yet because it can't even find the BYU score. So I'm a little nervous about it.

GLENN: Oh, there's -- if it didn't come in blue, it doesn't know you.

PAT: Right. Right.

GLENN: Okay. So here's the thing: So Alexa or Google Home, they're going after Amazon's Alexa. And they're saying that it records everything, listening for the key word, the wake word. And with Amazon, it's either Amazon or Alexa.

PAT: So I didn't know that. Everything that you say is recording.

GLENN: Recorded.

PAT: Even when you don't say, "Alexa," and wake it up? It's recording everything?

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: It is constantly listening to you.

PAT: That is fascinating.

GLENN: And it's recording everything waiting for the wake-up.

PAT: That's amazing.

JEFFY: The command.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. We have welcomed the NSA into our homes.

PAT: Right. We sure have. We sure have. I didn't even think of that. We'll have it in the kitchen, and we'll be sitting in the living room. And I tested it a few times to see how well it hears. And I've said, "Alexa," just speaking in a normal voice, and it turns on. It hears. So, I mean, it hears from a long way.

GLENN: Yeah, no. It is constantly listening and evaluating.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: And learning from your speech.

PAT: That's interesting.

GLENN: And so here's the thing: So the police have gone in Arkansas and said, "We need the tapes." Amazon has said, "No, we're not giving you the tapes."

JEFFY: Thank you.

GLENN: And they said, "Well, we need them because we think there was a murder."

JEFFY: Oh, well.

GLENN: Now, who wins in this?

PAT: You'd like a murder to be solved, but --

JEFFY: It's always for your safety when --

PAT: That's always the deal.

GLENN: It's always for your safety. The attorneys are now saying, if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, there's no way Amazon wins.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: Oh, I wouldn't bet on that.

JEFFY: Amazon's got a lot of money.

PAT: And look at the decisions that have been made recently. I mean, I would not bet -- I would not bet against the government winning that case.

GLENN: No, that's what they're saying.

PAT: Yeah. Okay.

GLENN: Amazon will not win the case.

PAT: Oh, I believe that. I believe that.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah.

PAT: Because look at the way the Supreme Court has been ruling lately.

GLENN: Yeah. Right. So they're saying, "What's the difference?" If I can go and monitor what you've done at the typewriter, at the keyboard --

JEFFY: Your phone.

GLENN: If I can just get that from the keyboard, what's the difference between you at the keyboard and you speaking it? There's no difference.

JEFFY: Yeah. And they're already taking access to all our mobile devices for all that stuff.

PAT: Wow. We literally have invited them into our home.

GLENN: Invited them into the house.

JEFFY: There's no getting out of it.

GLENN: There are no secrets.

PAT: We are living 1984.

GLENN: And we welcomed it. We're not living 1984. We're living Brave New World.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We welcomed it in.

PAT: That's for sure.

GLENN: 1984 was a hostile takeover.

PAT: That's true.

GLENN: Brave New World was better living through pharmaceuticals, better entertainment, better everything. You're just going to welcome it in.

PAT: Which is exactly what we have.

GLENN: You're just going to welcome it in. That's exactly what happened.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: When did the pharmaceuticals --

GLENN: Huxley was right --

JEFFY: When did the pharmaceuticals start?

GLENN: When did the pharmaceuticals start? Oh, they've already started, my friend. They've already started.

Alexa, can we get Jeffy a blood test?

JEFFY: No. No, Alexa, turn off. Turn off.

(chuckling)

GLENN: So now everything in your home is being listened to. And you know who uses this? At least nobody uses Siri, except the kids.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Kids love it.

GLENN: Kids will grab the phone, and they'll say, "Siri, what's the -- I don't use Siri. Nobody uses --

PAT: I tried Siri a few times, and it was so worthless, I just gave up.

JEFFY: Yeah, but the kids have fun with it.

GLENN: They love it.

JEFFY: It's just like the virtual reality headsets from Samsung.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Don't get me started.

PAT: Oh, those are cool.

JEFFY: I mean, I love it. But my kids fell in love with it.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. It's the end of civilization as we know it. Hey, 14 minutes into the show, end of civilization.

PAT: Happy New Year!

JEFFY: Good night, everybody.

GLENN: Fourteen minutes in the new year, Happy New Year.

PAT: Happy New Year.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It's true though. We welcomed all of this stuff, and it's amazing when you stop and think about what we have in our homes. And it's amazing how much more intrusive it's going to become.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Before we go there, I want to go to Betty, New Jersey. We have a problem I guess, Alexa. Betty in New Jersey. Hello, Betty.

CALLER: Yes, hello. We do have a problem. Tell Pat Gray to be quiet. He keeps turning on my Alexa. Three times already.

(laughter)

PAT: Alexa --

GLENN: Alexa, play bad jazz.

CALLER: Stop it! It does that too. Really bad jokes though. They make you laugh. Have a great day, but shut up!

GLENN: All right. Thanks, Betty.

(laughter)

PAT: Alexa, record everything Betty says.

GLENN: Tony. Let's go to Tony in Florida. Hi, Tony.

CALLER: Yeah. Hey, there. I was going to say, I was actually listening to you guys on my Alexa. And every time you say "Alexa," the first couple of times she would stop the program. She'd say, "I heard what you said. That's not a very nice thing to say." And I'm not making it up. I've never heard her say that before.

GLENN: Oh, yes, Alexa, we are talking about you.

JEFFY: Yes, we are.

CALLER: Yep. But she does not like it. She does not like you guys.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: Thanks a lot. Stand in line, Alexa. Stand in line.

Steve, go ahead.

CALLER: Hello, man, I just wanted to let you know, I'm 61 years old, and I am a massive fan of Ok Google. I called the show. I said, "Call Glenn Beck Radio Show." Popped me right in, and here I was.

JEFFY: Nice.

PAT: Nice.

CALLER: My wife has Siri. Siri is the worst thing there is. You can't get that thing to do anything for you. Ok Google, when you try it, it is awesome.

PAT: That's right. That's great.

GLENN: So you're in Arkansas, right?

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: So, Steve, are you paying attention to this story in Arkansas about the murder?

CALLER: Well, Ok Google only responds when you ask it. It isn't on all the time. But when you need information, Ok Google is right there.

PAT: No. That's the same with Alexa too. That's the same.

GLENN: It's the same.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: It's off, but it's always listening for its wake word.

CALLER: Oh, I see.

PAT: Yeah, so -- so it records everything you say whether you're talking to it or not.

CALLER: When I need information, Ok Google is on the spot. Siri, no way.

GLENN: No, I understand that.

PAT: I believe that. I believe that.

GLENN: I understand. I look at it and say -- for instance, who's going to lead this one? Why do you think Google is laying Google Fiber everywhere? They're trying to make Google cities.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. And they've done it in some cases.

GLENN: They've done it. They'll control the smart meters, they'll control -- they'll control the information in whole towns.

JEFFY: And okay. As long as our life is easy.

GLENN: Right!

And I am, up to a point, comfortable with a private business doing that than having a contract.

But now, Steve, you're talking to me about the benefits of it. I'm saying to you that it's listening to everything that you say. It is recording you. And now police are trying to get a -- through a court order, trying to get the tape to be able to solve a murder case. If that happens, the police will be able to grab all private conversations from your home, if they suspect you of something. Are you comfortable with that?

CALLER: Well, I'm like you, Glenn, to a point I'm saying, "I love it." As a law-abiding citizen, never been involved in a crime, love to be able to solve these issues.

JEFFY: Right. Nothing to be scared of.

CALLER: But, man, I don't know where you're going to draw the line.

PAT: That's exactly right. That's right. And the problem is, a lot of people will say, "Well, I don't care if they're listening. I'm not saying anything wrong."

Well, that's not up to you to decide, is it?

CALLER: Right.

PAT: Because it might be wrong to whomever is listening, or they might make it into something wrong.

JEFFY: And can. And have.

PAT: And have.

GLENN: Just with the regulations that they've put in, in the last eight years, everybody is breaking some law.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm not saying that this -- I'm not saying this is happening now. I'm saying, you don't worry about who's in office today. For instance, I gave the Democrats this warning eight years ago: Don't do this with executive power.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Because you're not always going to hold power. And when somebody else comes in and wields that same stick --

PAT: And now look at them. Look at them. Freaking out.

JEFFY: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: And now they're freaking out. Right.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I'm saying the same thing now to the Republicans: Don't do this because you're not always going to be in power. I don't know who the next Hitler is. I have no idea. But one will appear. If you give all of this power, all of this information, all of this regulation and we instill it behind one man, we're begging for someone to step in, in an emergency and take care of things for us.

Back in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: Holy cow. I'm listening to these fat cats and what they got for Christmas. Because we're talking about Alexa, Google Home, PlayStation 4.

Santa brought a PlayStation 4 for my son, which I had a talk with the fat man, and I informed him, "My son -- fat men, we have a council. We have a council meeting. All fat men get together. And Santa is not the chairman of the board this year. I am.

And -- but, you know, just watching -- he was playing Star Wars with it yesterday, and he gets so wrapped up.

JEFFY: I know.

GLENN: You know, with a 50-inch screen, he gets so wrapped up into it.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: When you put -- and when you put -- and he wanted it, virtual reality. And I just laughed. I'm like, no.

JEFFY: Oh, like I said, my kids fell in love with it.

GLENN: Oh. Totally immersive.

JEFFY: Right. That's all there is. I mean, you are in it.

GLENN: That's all there is. That is not good.

PAT: It does feel like you're there. It really does.

JEFFY: It really does. And when it can get better --

GLENN: You have it? Did you get it?

PAT: Yeah, my son has it. And, fortunately, he took it with him to college. But he has it, and I tried it a few times. And it's pretty amazing.

JEFFY: Yeah. It is.

GLENN: So you got virtual reality. And the Curve? Did you get a Curve TV?

JEFFY: I have one of the 55 Curves for the house. It was for the house.

PAT: Oh, nice.

GLENN: What is that like?

JEFFY: It's actually really nice. It looks a lot bigger. The old 55 was a piece of junk.

GLENN: Oh, I know.

JEFFY: That thing had to go. That had to go. I got so sick of looking at that thing.

GLENN: How much are those now? Can you get them at Costco yet?

PAT: Oh, I'm sure you can. Oh, yeah.

GLENN: I'm never buying a TV again unless it's from Costco.

JEFFY: Yeah, Costco or Sam's. I mean, you can get all those there. It's under 1,000.

GLENN: Under 1,000?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Was it really?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Nice.

GLENN: And you got a 4K?

PAT: I got the -- yeah, my wife really went crazy.

GLENN: Your wife bought it for you?

PAT: I couldn't believe it. I could not believe it.

GLENN: Why -- that's not her at all.

JEFFY: That is not.

PAT: That thing is huge. It's a big TV. And it's ultra high-definition. It's a 75-inch.

GLENN: 75-inch 4K!

PAT: Ultra high-definition 4K.

JEFFY: Do you have that in the --

GLENN: It's more expensive than your house.

PAT: Yes, it is.

GLENN: Is anything broadcast in that?

PAT: Yeah, Netflix is broadcast in that.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: The new original series. I don't know if all shows are.

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: I don't know if the one that reaches you is though.

PAT: What?

JEFFY: Like the cable companies --

GLENN: Yeah, they won't do 4K. That's a lot of space.

PAT: Yeah, some of them are in 4K. I think there's certain cable stations --

GLENN: That is a waste of money. That is a total waste of money.

PAT: It's unbelievable.

The things that are in 4K are unbelievable.

GLENN: I've seen it.

PAT: It's so vivid, and it makes all my other TVs look, you know, like they're from the '50s. Like they're from the '50s.

GLENN: Yeah, like the old standard --

JEFFY: I know. That's the way I felt with the old 55 --

GLENN: You watch TheBlaze on same cable channels, it is high definition. On some cable, they only give us standard.

You watch it in standard, it's like -- it's like watching from the 1970s.

PAT: Oh, standard television --

GLENN: Is awful.

PAT: Once you're used to high-definition, the standard is just --

GLENN: And 4K is just as much.

PAT: It looks blurry. And then 4K is that much better. Yeah, it makes HD look like standard. It's pretty amazing.

JEFFY: I mean, I want to apologize, but I'm still driving my car. I don't know. I like the way I feel driving to work.

GLENN: What are you talking about?

JEFFY: You're still -- I mean, you don't -- you have a car that just takes you places now, right?

GLENN: No.

JEFFY: What?

GLENN: Are you talking about the Tesla --

JEFFY: The future. We're talking about all this future stuff.

GLENN: I know.

JEFFY: People are going to be not driving soon. Soon.

GLENN: Very soon. I predict by 2030, you will not be allowed to drive. You will not be allowed --

PAT: I think that's a safe prediction.

GLENN: So let's talk about virtual reality --

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: -- and the drive to work.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: And some of the new technology that people are just gobbling up.

[break]

GLENN: Let me go to Chip in Ohio. Hello, Chip.

CALLER: Hey, guys.

GLENN: Hey.

CALLER: I do some work for a company that does work for Google, and I can tell you that there -- that the reason -- there's a big reason why Google Home and Google Now work better than Alexa, and it's because Alexa really mostly just has access to -- they either have access to what you search when you shop, or they have access to just what you say, and that's how it learns. Meanwhile, Google, when everything gets set up, they look at everything -- you know, they look at anything you search, when you're searching Google. They have all these different accounts to look at.

PAT: Oh.

CALLER: And so they pull from a lot more information.

PAT: Of course.

CALLER: Yeah, and it's a lot smart.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: You know, there's a funny video -- this is interesting you mentioned that. Because there's a funny video on the web right now that's gone viral about this little boy -- cute little guy --

GLENN: I saw it.

PAT: -- asking for hot diggity giggity or something.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And he asks, "Okay. Google, hot giggity -- or, Alexa. I forget which one.

JEFFY: It was Alexa.

PAT: Is it Alexa?

JEFFY: It was Amazon. Yeah.

PAT: And Alexa perceives it as some sort of porn. So is that because her parents -- his parents were watching porn or searching for porn or?

CALLER: No. Actually with that -- and that's something else I work on. I can't really talk a whole lot else about it, but no, see, Amazon the way that they do their product, it's got to learn from it. And if Alexa doesn't have a base to work off of, then it --

JEFFY: It goes back to like a generic mindset.

CALLER: I'm guessing Alexa just learns from the internet, while the Google Now Home products, they learn from people that get on and do work and say, "No, you don't want to show porn."

JEFFY: Right.

CALLER: Or if the parents have a special setting turned on, the Google products can say, "Okay. A child is messing with this. And even though I think he may be looking for porn, he's just a child, and I need to stop and not let him see it."

PAT: Oh, the Google will do that for you?

CALLER: There's -- there are settings you can do. Parental settings, that kind of thing.

JEFFY: Wow.

PAT: Yeah.

CALLER: But, yeah, it's also -- they actually have people do work to make sure that the kids are safe online, that kind of stuff.

GLENN: So, Chip, I don't know if you can say this, but, I mean, it's pretty well-known. The reason why Google is doing all of this -- and the search engine, the reason why it's free is because -- and the same thing here is they are trying to develop artificial intelligence. And so they're using all of this information as a way to map how the human brain and how humans interact and how they think.

And so the -- you are -- you're looking at the benefit. Oh, this is great. I get this.

Their benefit -- the reason why this is so cost-effective for you in the home is because they want all of that information because they're -- they're striving for artificial intelligence. And if there is one company that I think would do it, it would be Google. Because as you said, Chip, they have access to absolutely everything.

CALLER: Yeah, I can't comment a whole lot on that to tell you whether or not you might be right. But what I can say: It may make you feel a little bit better, is whenever we do our work, we're not -- you know, we're not told to bias anything in a certain way.

GLENN: Sure.

CALLER: They really want it to be how -- they want it to be something that works for everyone because it -- but, you know, I -- I don't know about maybe if they're doing anything like that, like you're talking about.

GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, I'm not assigning anything nefarious.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's a private corporation. And AI would be exceptional to have. I mean, you've already said, Chip, and we should probably cut this conversation with you because you don't get into any trouble here. But when -- you know, as Chip was saying a second ago, that they're using all of the information. The goal is eventually to be able to say -- you're reading something, and it's starting to now think like you are. So it is the ultimate assistant.

And so it knows what you're reading because you're reading it on your device. It knows what you've underlined. It knows when you -- for instance, it has all of my patterns of when I read. It knows that I go and I will highlight a name or I will jump off and I will look for additional information. It will already do those things.

And so when you get up in the morning, it will say, "Hey, Glenn, I noticed that last night you were reading such-and-such. Would you like some more information? I did some research. I think you'll find this really interesting. Or, I know you've been talking about your anniversary is coming up and I know that you've been talking to your assistant -- because it's reading my mail about setting something up for your anniversary -- have you considered these things because I also read Tania's mail?"

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: "And I know she's interested right now in these things." That's -- there's nothing nefarious about it.

JEFFY: But first let me get you a cup of coffee. Oh, how great is that going to be?

GLENN: Yeah.

CALLER: Well, I'll just say -- and I'll just get off of here, but, yeah, I'll just say, no comment on that.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

CALLER: You can figure that out.

GLENN: Yeah.

CALLER: But, yeah. Yeah, no comment.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

I mean, there's no secret to that.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, he probably can't talk about it because of his nondisclosures. But there's nothing nefarious about that. The question is: Where do you draw the line?

At what point do you say, "I don't want to go any further than this?"

JEFFY: There's -- I don't think there is a line anymore.

GLENN: I don't think there is either.

JEFFY: No.

GLENN: This is what -- Al Gore talks about it in the first chapter of his book, that nobody read, the idea of transhumanism. And transhumanism is targeted to be about 2030. And that is the merging of man and machine, where artificial intelligence is so good that you will -- that you will automatically upload things. You'll be able to download some of your thoughts and upload some new information.

Well, who's -- how are you going to compete, if you don't want to do that?

Right now, think of our conversations. It's the ten-year anniversary of the smartphone, of the i Phone, this year. Ten-year anniversary. Ten years.

Now think about conversations. Because we just had them. We were up at the ranch.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: We don't really have devices. So you're up at the ranch. And you're playing cards or you're playing a game. Nobody has Google out -- where you're talking about a story, where you're saying, "Hey, what was the name of that?" You actually have to search for it in your own mind, "No, no, it was something like that. No, I'll think about it in a second." We don't have those conversations anymore. Because you start down that road, and somebody has it and they've done the Google search.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: When that is merged with you, think of the power that you have as an individual. When you are able to access the internet inside your own self. That's 2030.

I am convinced -- I was with my sister and her son over the holiday, and she got in VR goggles. And I looked at her and I went, "Are you out of your mind?"

She's like, "Oh, no, they're great. Have you seen -- no, yeah, I've seen them.

It's the end -- I'm convinced, the end of civilization.

JEFFY: I just want to ride the rollercoaster. That's all. What are you talking about?

GLENN: No, I know you do.

But if you look at where that's headed -- when you have -- and by 2025, you'll have this. When you have the virtual suit that you can put on --

JEFFY: Yeah, when you're able to feel -- when you're able to feel when you're riding or whatever you're doing and you're able to actually feel the sensation, you're already reaching for things, and you can't.

GLENN: Yeah. When you can reach -- when you can reach out and grab something --

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: When someone can tap you on the shoulder in VR and you can feel it --

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Can you imagine, they have these horror scenarios that you watch on these --

GLENN: Black Mirror.

JEFFY: If they can reach out and touch you.

PAT: If you can reach out and touch, oh, my gosh. Terrifying. It would be terrifying.

JEFFY: Yeah.

GLENN: So now imagine -- and we've talked about this before: Imagine. My life is just a piece of crap.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: I just go to work. I don't have a job that I like. I don't have any satisfaction. I -- just, you know, I have a crappy life.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I'm just not making it. But I can afford VR, and I can afford the internet, and I can afford -- I'll save up for this suit. I go out and I just do my job, dead to the world. Just dead to the world.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: I'm just living for my paycheck to feed and to be able to pay for the internet and the services that I want.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I go home, I get into the suit, I now have a girlfriend who can touch me. She learns all about me.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I have an assistant. I have the virtual -- I live in a palace.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Everything I -- everything I do. And then I take off the goggles, and I'm back to this world.

Oh, I'm telling you, it is the end of civilization.

PAT: Because the other world will be so much better for so many people.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: So many people. It's created for you. How can it not be? It's personalized to fit your every want and need. Tell me how you don't end up in the matrix. Back in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: By the way, talked about this stuff, if you want to read a book, we read it as a family, it is fantastic. And it talks about this coming world. It's called Ready Player One. It came out a few years ago. Best-seller. Steven Spielberg just bought it. Making a movie in the next couple of years. And it's really good. And it talks about this virtual world and what it's really going to be like and how the corporations and the government have kind of intertwined -- it's really fascinating. It's called Ready Player One.

Did anybody see Rogue One?

PAT: Yeah, I liked it. I liked it a lot.

GLENN: Yeah. I thought -- when I watched it, I thought, you know --

PAT: It wasn't fabulous, but it was really good.

GLENN: It wasn't fabulous. It a good movie -- it was a really good movie. For a secondary story line, it's a fantastic movie.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it's just a printing press for Disney.

PAT: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: Think of what Disney has now: Disney has the Marvel series. They own Marvel.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: They own Pixar. And they own Star Wars.

PAT: That's a pretty good lineup.

GLENN: What else do they need?

PAT: It's a pretty good lineup.

GLENN: I mean, that's an amazing company.

PAT: Not to mention the parks. Yeah, they're --

GLENN: ABC Television.

PAT: ABC TV. Yeah, they're pretty well set.

GLENN: When ABC Television is kind of like the junk, you know what I mean? You're kind of like, "Oh, you work for that part of Disney."

PAT: Unless it's ESPN. Because I think ESPN is probably more valuable than ABC is now.

GLENN: Yeah, ESPN. Oh, it is. Oh, it is.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: ESPN. Except, what was the controversy on ESPN over the holiday?

Oh, there was something that I read about ESPN. Maybe it was just a year in review, talking about how ESPN is losing viewership because they have become so politically correct.

JEFFY: They're so PC, yeah.

PAT: Oh, that could be.

JEFFY: That could be.

GLENN: I saw a research report on -- on Facebook, and the difference between Republicans and Democrats. And I couldn't believe how different we are.

The people who said that they were voting for a Republican versus the people who said they were voting for Democrats, like 60 percent of Republicans, 70 percent of Republicans said they were NFL -- also liked the NFL or an NFL team. And only like 40 percent of Democrats.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: It's a weird split.

PAT: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. Really weird split.

PAT: And yet it's interesting. Because any time you listen to a sports station, any time they get on politics, completely liberal.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

PAT: And it's just agonizing to listen to them.

GLENN: And I think that's part of the problem with ESPN.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: ESPN appeals to the heartland, except they don't understand that.

JEFFY: They're not.

PAT: Yeah, they --

GLENN: Yeah. I don't -- I mean, have you guys ever noticed a split between people who live in New York and football? I mean, I was shocked by that. It was -- it was -- I'm trying to remember. I think it was also there were more conservatives or more Republicans that followed soccer than Democrats.

PAT: Oh, that can't be, because soccer fans are communists. We all know that.

(laughter)

GLENN: Right. That's what I thought. They're all open border communists.

PAT: That's right. It just can't be.

(laughter)

JEFFY: It's already flawed. We're not talking about it anymore --

GLENN: Yeah, soccer. You guys making a New Year's resolution?

PAT: No, I never do that. It's a waste of time. I gave that up for lent, a long time ago. And I don't even do lent.

JEFFY: Well, that is your resolution.

PAT: Yeah, it is. Not to make -- you know, I just try to do better and then leave it at that. Because any time you make a resolution --

GLENN: And that's why you never really get anything done.

PAT: And that's why I never really improve.

GLENN: Right. That's why you're the same man you were -- I met 30 years ago.

PAT: Probably even worse. You know, I've gone backward. I've gone backwards.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So it's not working well for me.

GLENN: Yeah, I've never kept a New Years resolution.

PAT: Has anybody?

JEFFY: Oh.

PAT: We should ask. I mean, I would love to hear of somebody who has -- you know, for ten or 15 or 20 years kept a resolution. Even for 15 minutes, have you kept a resolution?

(laughter)

JEFFY: Go to the gym every day. You know, working out, eating better, feeling good.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh.

PAT: That never happens. That never happens.

GLENN: We as a family -- we as a family -- we were buying somebody a gym membership, and, you know, it got to me.

You know, you want to -- you want to donate for the gym -- I said, "They're never going to use that. They're never going to use that."

Oh, no, but they really need to.

"Yeah, I know they need to."

PAT: They really need to.

JEFFY: We all need to.

GLENN: Yeah, no, but they're really talking about getting healthy.

"They're not going to get healthy."

PAT: Yeah. No. No.

GLENN: Maybe if you buy maybe a couple of times to the gym, they'll use that. Not the membership. Forget it.

Featured Image: Bradley Hook, Pexels

Trump v. Slaughter: The Deep State on trial

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The administrative state has long operated as an unelected super-government. Trump v. Slaughter may be the moment voters reclaim authority over their own institutions.

Washington is watching and worrying about a U.S. Supreme Court case that could very well define the future of American self-government. And I don’t say that lightly. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is a deceptively simple question: Can the president — the one official chosen by the entire nation — remove the administrators and “experts” who wield enormous, unaccountable power inside the executive branch?

This isn’t a technical fight. It’s not a paperwork dispute. It’s a turning point. Because if the answer is no, then the American people no longer control their own government. Elections become ceremonial. The bureaucracy becomes permanent. And the Constitution becomes a suggestion rather than the law of the land.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

That simply cannot be. Justice Neil Gorsuch summed it up perfectly during oral arguments on Monday: “There is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”

Yet for more than a century, the administrative state has grown like kudzu — quietly, relentlessly, and always in one direction. Today we have a fourth branch of government: unelected, unaccountable, insulated from consequence. Congress hands off lawmaking to agencies. Presidents arrive with agendas, but the bureaucrats remain, and they decide what actually gets done.

If the Supreme Court decides that presidents cannot fire the very people who execute federal power, they are not just rearranging an org chart. The justices are rewriting the structure of the republic. They are confirming what we’ve long feared: Here, the experts rule, not the voters.

A government run by experts instead of elected leaders is not a republic. It’s a bureaucracy with a voting booth bolted onto the front to make us feel better.

The founders warned us

The men who wrote the Constitution saw this temptation coming. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers hammered home the same principle again and again: Power must remain traceable to the people. They understood human nature far too well. They knew that once administrators are protected from accountability, they will accumulate power endlessly. It is what humans do.

That’s why the Constitution vests the executive power in a single president — someone the entire nation elects and can unelect. They did not want a managerial council. They did not want a permanent priesthood of experts. They wanted responsibility and authority to live in one place so the people could reward or replace it.

So this case will answer a simple question: Do the people still govern this country, or does a protected class of bureaucrats now run the show?

Not-so-expert advice

Look around. The experts insisted they could manage the economy — and produced historic debt and inflation.

The experts insisted they could run public health — and left millions of Americans sick, injured, and dead while avoiding accountability.

The experts insisted they could steer foreign policy — and delivered endless conflict with no measurable benefit to our citizens.

And through it all, they stayed. Untouched, unelected, and utterly unapologetic.

If a president cannot fire these people, then you — the voter — have no ability to change the direction of your own government. You can vote for reform, but you will get the same insiders making the same decisions in the same agencies.

That is not self-government. That is inertia disguised as expertise.

A republic no more?

A monarchy can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A dictatorship can survive a permanent bureaucracy. A constitutional republic cannot. Not for long anyway.

We are supposed to live in a system where the people set the course, Congress writes the laws, and the president carries them out. When agencies write their own rules, judges shield them from oversight, and presidents are forbidden from removing them, we no longer live in that system. We live in something else — something the founders warned us about.

And the people become spectators of their own government.

JIM WATSON / Contributor | Getty Images

The path forward

Restoring the separation of powers does not mean rejecting expertise. It means returning expertise to its proper role: advisory, not sovereign.

No expert should hold power that voters cannot revoke. No agency should drift beyond the reach of the executive. No bureaucracy should be allowed to grow branches the Constitution never gave it.

The Supreme Court now faces a choice that will shape American life for a generation. It can reinforce the Constitution, or it can allow the administrative state to wander even farther from democratic control.

This case isn’t about President Trump. It isn’t about Rebecca Slaughter, the former Federal Trade Commission official suing to get her job back. It’s about whether elections still mean anything — whether the American people still hold the reins of their own government.

That is what is at stake: not procedure, not technicalities, but the survival of a system built on the revolutionary idea that the citizens — not the experts — are the ones who rule.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

1 in 20 Canadians die by MAID—Is this 'compassion'?

Vaughn Ridley / Stringer | Getty Images

Medical assistance in dying isn’t health care. It’s the moment a Western democracy decided some lives aren’t worth saving, and it’s a warning sign we can’t ignore.

Canada loves to lecture America about compassion. Every time a shooting makes the headlines, Canadian commentators cannot wait to discuss how the United States has a “culture of death” because we refuse to regulate guns the way enlightened nations supposedly do.

But north of our border, a very different crisis is unfolding — one that is harder to moralize because it exposes a deeper cultural failure.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order.

The Canadian government is not only permitting death, but it’s also administering, expanding, and redefining it as “medical care.” Medical assistance in dying is no longer a rare, tragic exception. It has become one of the country’s leading causes of death, offered to people whose problems are treatable, whose conditions are survivable, and whose value should never have been in question.

In Canada, MAID is now responsible for nearly 5% of all deaths — 1 out of every 20 citizens. And this is happening in a country that claims the moral high ground over American gun violence. Canada now records more deaths per capita from doctors administering lethal drugs than America records from firearms. Their number is 37.9 deaths per 100,000 people. Ours is 13.7. Yet we are the country supposedly drowning in a “culture of death.”

No lecture from abroad can paper over this fact: Canada has built a system where eliminating suffering increasingly means eliminating the sufferer.

Choosing death over care

One example of what Canada now calls “compassion” is the case of Jolene Bond, a woman suffering from a painful but treatable thyroid condition that causes dangerously high calcium levels, bone deterioration, soft-tissue damage, nausea, and unrelenting pain. Her condition is severe, but it is not terminal. Surgery could help her. And in a functioning medical system, she would have it.

But Jolene lives under socialized medicine. The specialists she needs are either unavailable, overrun with patients, or blocked behind bureaucratic requirements she cannot meet. She cannot get a referral. She cannot get an appointment. She cannot reach the doctor in another province who is qualified to perform the operation. Every pathway to treatment is jammed by paperwork, shortages, and waitlists that stretch into the horizon and beyond.

Yet the Canadian government had something else ready for her — something immediate.

They offered her MAID.

Not help, not relief, not a doctor willing to drive across a provincial line and simply examine her. Instead, Canada offered Jolene a state-approved death. A lethal injection is easier to obtain than a medical referral. Killing her would be easier than treating her. And the system calls that compassion.

Bureaucracy replaces medicine

Jolene’s story is not an outlier. It is the logical outcome of a system that cannot keep its promises. When the machinery of socialized medicine breaks down, the state simply replaces care with a final, irreversible “solution.” A bureaucratic checkbox becomes the last decision of a person’s life.

Canada insists its process is rigorous, humane, and safeguarded. Yet the bureaucracy now reviewing Jolene’s case is not asking how she can receive treatment; it is asking whether she has enough signatures to qualify for a lethal injection. And the debate among Canadian officials is not how to preserve life, but whether she has met the paperwork threshold to end it.

This is the dark inversion that always emerges when the state claims the power to decide when life is no longer worth living. Bureaucracy replaces conscience. Eligibility criteria replace compassion. A panel of physicians replaces the family gathered at a bedside. And eventually, the “right” to die becomes an expectation — especially for those who are poor, elderly, or alone.

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

The logical end of a broken system

We ignore this lesson at our own peril. Canada’s health care system is collapsing under demographic pressure, uncontrolled migration, and the unavoidable math of government-run medicine.

When the system breaks, someone must bear the cost. MAID has become the release valve.

The ideology behind this system is already drifting south. In American medical journals and bioethics conferences, you will hear this same rhetoric. The argument is always dressed in compassion. But underneath, it reduces the value of human life to a calculation: Are you useful? Are you affordable? Are you too much of a burden?

The West was built on a conviction that every human life has inherent value. That truth gave us hospitals before it gave us universities. It gave us charity before it gave us science. It is written into the Declaration of Independence.

Canada’s MAID program reveals what happens when a country lets that foundation erode. Life becomes negotiable, and suffering becomes a justification for elimination.

A society that no longer recognizes the value of life will not long defend freedom, dignity, or moral order. If compassion becomes indistinguishable from convenience, and if medicine becomes indistinguishable from euthanasia, the West will have abandoned the very principles that built it. That is the lesson from our northern neighbor — a warning, not a blueprint.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

A Sharia enclave is quietly taking root in America. It's time to wake up.

NOVA SAFO / Staff | Getty Images

Sharia-based projects like the Meadow in Texas show how political Islam grows quietly, counting on Americans to stay silent while an incompatible legal system takes root.

Apolitical system completely incompatible with the Constitution is gaining ground in the United States, and we are pretending it is not happening.

Sharia — the legal and political framework of Islam — is being woven into developments, institutions, and neighborhoods, including a massive project in Texas. And the consequences will be enormous if we continue to look the other way.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

Before we can have an honest debate, we’d better understand what Sharia represents. Sharia is not simply a set of religious rules about prayer or diet. It is a comprehensive legal and political structure that governs marriage, finance, criminal penalties, and civic life. It is a parallel system that claims supremacy wherever it takes hold.

This is where the distinction matters. Many Muslims in America want nothing to do with Sharia governance. They came here precisely because they lived under it. But political Islam — the movement that seeks to implement Sharia as law — is not the same as personal religious belief.

It is a political ideology with global ambitions, much like communism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently warned that Islamist movements do not seek peaceful coexistence with the West. They seek dominance. History backs him up.

How Sharia arrives

Political Islam does not begin with dramatic declarations. It starts quietly, through enclaves that operate by their own rules. That is why the development once called EPIC City — now rebranded as the Meadow — is so concerning. Early plans framed it as a Muslim-only community built around a mega-mosque and governed by Sharia-compliant financing. After state investigations were conducted, the branding changed, but the underlying intent remained the same.

Developers have openly described practices designed to keep non-Muslims out, using fees and ownership structures to create de facto religious exclusivity. This is not assimilation. It is the construction of a parallel society within a constitutional republic.

The warning from those who have lived under it

Years ago, local imams in Texas told me, without hesitation, that certain Sharia punishments “just work.” They spoke about cutting off hands for theft, stoning adulterers, and maintaining separate standards of testimony for men and women. They insisted it was logical and effective while insisting they would never attempt to implement it in Texas.

But when pressed, they could not explain why a system they consider divinely mandated would suddenly stop applying once someone crossed a border.

This is the contradiction at the heart of political Islam: It claims universal authority while insisting its harshest rules will never be enforced here. That promise does not stand up to scrutiny. It never has.

AASHISH KIPHAYET / Contributor | Getty Images

America is vulnerable

Europe is already showing us where this road leads. No-go zones, parallel courts, political intimidation, and clerics preaching supremacy have taken root across major cities.

America’s strength has always come from its melting pot, but assimilation requires boundaries. It requires insisting that the Constitution, not religious law, is the supreme authority on this soil.

Yet we are becoming complacent, even fearful, about saying so. We mistake silence for tolerance. We mistake avoidance for fairness. Meanwhile, political Islam views this hesitation as weakness.

Religious freedom is one of America’s greatest gifts. Muslims may worship freely here, as they should. But political Islam must not be permitted to plant a flag on American soil. The Constitution cannot coexist with a system that denies equal rights, restricts speech, subordinates women, and places clerical authority above civil law.

Wake up before it is too late

Projects like the Meadow are not isolated. They are test runs, footholds, proofs of concept. Political Islam operates with patience. It advances through demographic growth, legal ambiguity, and cultural hesitation — and it counts on Americans being too polite, too distracted, or too afraid to confront it.

We cannot afford that luxury. If we fail to defend the principles that make this country free, we will one day find ourselves asking how a parallel system gained power right in front of us. The answer will be simple: We looked away.

The time to draw boundaries and to speak honestly is now. The time to defend the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is now. Act while there is still time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Why do Americans feel so empty?

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

Anxiety, anger, and chronic dissatisfaction signal a country searching for meaning. Without truth and purpose, politics becomes a dangerous substitute for identity.

We have built a world overflowing with noise, convenience, and endless choice, yet something essential has slipped out of reach. You can sense it in the restless mood of the country, the anxiety among young people who cannot explain why they feel empty, in the angry confusion that dominates our politics.

We have more wealth than any nation in history, but the heart of the culture feels strangely malnourished. Before we can debate debt or elections, we must confront the reality that we created a world of things, but not a world of purpose.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

What we are living through is not just economic or political dysfunction. It is the vacuum that appears when a civilization mistakes abundance for meaning.

Modern life is stuffed with everything except what the human soul actually needs. We built systems to make life faster, easier, and more efficient — and then wondered why those systems cannot teach our children who they are, why they matter, or what is worth living for.

We tell the next generation to chase success, influence, and wealth, turning childhood into branding. We ask kids what they want to do, not who they want to be. We build a world wired for dopamine rather than dignity, and then we wonder why so many people feel unmoored.

When everything is curated, optimized, and delivered at the push of a button, the question “what is my life for?” gets lost in the static.

The crisis beneath the headlines

It is not just the young who feel this crisis. Every part of our society is straining under the weight of meaninglessness.

Look at the debt cycle — the mathematical fate no civilization has ever escaped once it crosses a threshold that we seem to have already blown by. While ordinary families feel the pressure, our leaders respond with distraction, with denial, or by rewriting the very history that could have warned us.

You cannot survive a crisis you refuse to name, and you cannot rebuild a world whose foundations you no longer understand.

We have entered a cultural moment where the noise is so loud that it drowns out the simplest truths. We are living in a country that no longer knows how to hear itself think.

So people go searching. Some drift toward the false promise of socialism, some toward the empty thrill of rebellion. Some simply check out. When a culture forgets what gives life meaning, it becomes vulnerable to every ideology that offers a quick answer.

The quiet return of meaning

And yet, quietly, something else is happening. Beneath the frustration and cynicism, many Americans are recognizing that meaning does not come from what we own, but from what we honor. It does not rise from success, but from virtue. It does not emerge from noise, but from the small, sacred things that modern life has pushed to the margins — the home, the table, the duty you fulfill, the person you help when no one is watching.

The danger is assuming that this rediscovery happens on its own. It does not.

Reorientation requires intention. It requires rebuilding the habits and virtues that once held us together. It requires telling the truth about our history instead of rewriting it to fit today’s narratives. And it requires acknowledging what has been erased: that meaning is inseparable from God’s presence in a nation’s life.

Harold M. Lambert / Contributor | Getty Images

Where renewal begins

We have built a world without stillness, and then we wondered why no one can hear the questions that matter. Those questions remain, whether we acknowledge them or not. They do not disappear just because we drown them in entertainment or noise. They wait for us, and the longer we ignore them, the more disoriented we become.

Meaning is still available. It is found in rebuilding the smallest, most human spaces — the places that cannot be digitized, globalized, or automated. The home. The family. The community.

These are the daily virtues that do not trend on social media, but that hold a civilization upright. If we want to repair this country, we begin there, exactly where every durable civilization has always begun: one virtue at a time, one tradition at a time, one generation at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.