RADIOSeptember 15, 2022

4 ways Democrats are RUINING energy & 5 ways we can save it

It’s not just that America needs more energy to run the nation NOW. But we’ll need much more if we actually want to run the technology of the FUTURE. So, it’s a good thing there’s no knowledge OR physical resource deficits to creating more, low-cost energy in thousands of places around the world, Alex Epstein, author of ‘Fossil Future,’ tells Glenn. Rather, he says, today's energy crisis is due to current political reasons instead. In fact, Epstein lists the four steps Democrats seem to be taking — especially within the Inflation Reduction Act — to ruin American energy. Thankfully, Epstein has the answer to save it. He discusses the 5 steps to his ‘energy freedom platform’ and explains how YOU can become involved to help save American energy too...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So last night, I laid out a kind of bleak look for the future of energy. And I don't think most people understand. We don't need just the energy to run things now. We need more energy to run the technology of the future. And Alex Epstein is with us. He's from the Center of Industrial Progress. Founder and president. And also, the author of a book you must read, it's Fossil Fuel.

And he's come equipped with some real solutions to our energy problem, to be able to stave it off. And, really, all you need is support from the American people. Right?

ALEX: Yeah. The great thing about energy, is there's all the potential to produce low cost reliable energy for billions of people in thousands of places. There's no -- there's no physical resource deficit for doing this, and there's no knowledge deficit.

Human beings know how to produce reliable electricity. Right? We know how to produce energy on a scale of billions of people. We're just being prohibited from doing it politically. Which means that there's a political solution, if we are liberated to be able to do it.

GLENN: So we have -- I mentioned that in Colorado -- I mean, people who have these smart thermostats. I've said for a while. Don't do that.
ALEX: That's a euphemism.

GLENN: Yeah. I know. In Colorado, they had to -- they lost control of their thermostats. And I mentioned that and said, you know, if your right to touch your thermostat is only worth $25 a year to you, good luck. But people are bashing back saying, well, that's because the coal-powered plants went down. And, you know, it was an emergency at the coal-powered plants. Because coal is just not stable.

ALEX: Yeah. We're really in this Orwellian world, right? I mean, the inflation act is called the Inflation Reduction Act. Freedom is slavery. And coal is unreliable. And solar and wind are reliable. Despite the obvious.

GLENN: Right. Right.

ALEX: Yeah. What they always point to, they did this with the Texas blackouts too.

They'll point to some individual failure of some fossil fuel plant. And then say, oh, well, this inherently doesn't work.

But we know that we can produce reliable electricity with fossil fuels, because we've been doing it for generations. And we've done it in all weather conditions. You can do it when it's really cold, when it's really hot. So if you know a fossil fuel plant fails, that's just something about the specific situation. That's not the technology. Solar and wind, they do not produce electricity most of the time, and you can't rely on them, almost any time. That's the basic nature of them. And part of what happens when you see fossil fuel failures is often, they have to account for the intermittency of solar and wind. So they have to cycle up and down, or be shut down and restarted more. Much more than they would be if they were on their own.

And -- or what happens is they'll get defunded, the way the whole subsidies just expanded unfortunately. Is that they defund reliable powerplants, including things like weatherization, say, for natural gas in Texas. So we know that we can -- again, we have all the ability to produce reliable electricity at low costs. We're just not using it because of political factors.

GLENN: Okay. So go over can't five-point plan.

ALEX: So I call this the energy freedom platform. And I encourage politicians of all parties to adopt this opinion unfortunately -- I mean, unfortunately right now, Democrats are not being very good in terms of energy. They almost all supported the inflation act. I think basically all of them did.

GLENN: And, by the way, I played the audio from an activist group, that was a part of this inflation reduction bill.

And they admitted, they were talking to their own supporters. And they were like, look, it's not about inflation.

It's really a green bill. Which we all kind of knew, if you were paying attention.

It's a green bill. It's stuffed with stuff about green energy.

ALEX: Yeah. And we can talk about how -- I mean, I consider that a four-step recipe for destroying American energy basically. Because just very quickly.

So it involves increasing dependence on unreliable electricity. If you want to destroy American energy, that's a good step one. Step two is add taxes and restrictions to fossil fuels, during fossil fuel shortages. That's a good -- that's a good step two. What were the other steps? I mean, it's so bad. Oh, yeah. Increase the power of the EPA to shut down fossil fuel projects. We need more of that, obviously. And then increase the power of environmental justice activists to stop all energy development.

GLENN: And you've just done that the lie the DOJ now.

ALEX: Yeah. They have this four-step thing, which if you're trying to destroy American energy, it's hard to think of a better plan. So let's talk about how to improve American energy, with the Energy Freedom Platform. So I'll give the five, and then we can go into depth in any of one of them.

Okay? So number one is liberate responsible development. Number two is end preferences for unreliable electricity. Number three is reform air and water emission standards to incorporate cost-benefit analysis. This is a really important one for EPA stuff. Number four is liberate -- is rather, reduce emissions long-term, through innovation, not through punishing America.

Through liberating innovation, not through punishing America.

And then number five, which I know you will be sympathetic to, is decriminalize nuclear energy. So we can talk about any of those, but they're all crucial.

GLENN: Okay. Let's just take them one by one real quick.

ALEX: Okay.

GLENN: First one.

ALEX: So liberate responsible development. Energy inherently involves developing the world around us. And yet we have an anti-development movement that is setting energy policy, and running many of these agencies. So there's opposition to development even in the investment world. But in particular, just all these antidevelopment policies that are restricting fossil fuel development, nuclear development, et cetera.

GLENN: So ESG is a good example. Well, ESG is a kind of quasi political. But if you just look at how difficult it is, if you take nuclear. Like how difficult it is to start a nuclear plant.

You know, you say, four years.

Now it takes 16 years. Part of that is you have these antidevelopment so-called green activists that can stop things on a dime. So you really need policies that are pro development. And they're responsible development, if they try to stop endangerment. So you don't want to endanger local people, or endanger some national treasure. But you can't have the idea that it's wrong to develop nature.

And that terrible anti-human idea is at the root of so many of our laws and policies.

So when I go into the details, if people go to EnergyTalkingPoints.com, you'll see there's a lot of specific policies that need to be reformed, that are antidevelopment right now.
GLENN: Okay. All right. Number two.

ALEX: So is end -- end preferences for unreliable electricity.

And on that website, there's something called electricity emergency, which goes into the details.

But basically, right now, we do three things. We have mandates for unreliable electricity. We prefer them in that way. Many states have those. Like my state of California, unfortunately has those.

We have subsidies, which we just expanded under the Inflation Act.

Right? So we did that. And then the most insidious that people don't know, is that we have very unfair pricing. Because there's no cost penalty for selling unreliable electricity into the grid. Now, you think about that. Imagine you have a car company, and you got to charge the same for a car that works a third of the time. And a car that works all the time. That's how the grid works. You get the same alternate for selling unreliable electricity. Reliable electricity. And actually, you get more. Because all the subsidies, that we just extended. So you actually get paid a premium for selling something that is not nearly as valuable. And sometimes unreliable electricity is of negative value. Sometimes if you have too much electricity, you need to off-load it. So this is -- if you pay a premium for you be reliable electricity. Guess what, you get unreliable electricity.

GLENN: Okay. Number three.

ALEX: So this had to do with the air and water emissions standards. So right now, let's look at what the EPA is doing. We have in that article, electricity emergency.

I talk about, there's slated to be 93 gigawatts of coal shutting down, in terms of already announced things. That's almost one-tenth of a reliable capacity.

One-tenth. This is by 2030.

But there's also the threat of 92 more.

So almost a fifth of our reliable capacity. There's a reliability bloodbath that's scheduling to happen. The lion's share of this comes from EPA policies.

So it's EPA deliberately trying to do things that will shut down these coal plants, even though as you've talked about, there's no viable replacement in the pipeline. We have almost no nuclear scheduled. Not nearly enough gas.

So how does the EPA justify this? Well, one thing is they don't use real cost-benefit analysis when they're making decisions. So they'll say, hey, wouldn't it be great to have lower emissions? But they don't think about, what is the cost of that, in terms of what is the cost to human life of an unreliable grid. They're almost incalculable. So the EPA is making these decisions, and they're not giving any consideration to the reliability of the great. So that's an example of you need real cost-benefit analysis.

GLENN: These people -- are there any honest people on this side? I mean, I don't understand how an honest person can look at it and not say, yeah, but this will make things more unreliable. And people will either die from heat stroke, or they will either die freezing in the winter. You know, you can't just have an unreliable grid like this? Is there anybody on the other side that is asking these questions that's honest?

ALEX: I think one. I mean, there are some people who are really anti-energy. So essentially, they're honest. They hide it from the public. They want less power. They want to industrialize. That kind of thing. I think one of the challenges is. I talk about this in chapter one, of Fossil Future. We rely on what I call a knowledge system to give us expert knowledge and guidance on all these specialized areas. And what you have is multiple of these specializations are failing, at the same time. But each specialization thinks the other is doing its job. So, for instance, the electricity people have been hiding the electricity emergency.

They're not acknowledging. Many of the companies have not been acknowledging. You talk behind the scenes, yeah. This is a disaster. But publicly, they won't say anything. The regulators are kind of silent. And so the public thinks, oh, there's not that big a threat. And then the EPA people, they'll distort the science about the side effects of coal.

But they'll kind of think, oh, yeah. We don't have to worry about reliability. Because the isn't saying that.

There's dishonesty kind of everywhere.

But one reinforces the other. I mean, we've got a world, that thought legitimately, you could rapidly eliminate fossil fuels by 2050, and it would work well. This was the mainstream view.

And part of it was there were all these false views, that are being combined. And people have this idea. Well, most people -- the experts, so-called.

The people that were told they're experts. They can't be that wrong. But they can be that wrong in part because what we're told the experts think is usually a massive distortion of what actually the researchers in a field think.

GLENN: Yes. That's happening with global warming, all the time.

ALEX: Oh, yeah. Of course. It's the idea that the world is going to end, if it gets one or 2 degrees warmer on a planet where far more people die of cold than of heat.

The researchers don't think that, but that gets distorted by what I call our knowledge system to make it. Oh, it's an apocalypse. And you have to take a crash emergency action and destroy all your energy. And then the planet will be nice to you. And then life will be great.

GLENN: Give me the fourth one.
ALEX: So the fourth one is --

GLENN: Reduce.

ALEX: Reduce emissions long-term. It's very important. It has to be long-term. Because there's no short-term producing of emissions. That's a pipe dream. So it's reduce CO2 emissions long-term, by liberating innovation, not punishing America.

GLENN: When did we lose that in America?

ALEX: Lose which one?

GLENN: The idea that we innovate our way out of problems? Instead, we're just -- we're just dismantling everything. Instead of saying, you know, hey, we've got -- we've got a food storage problem. And somebody comes up with the refrigerator, you know what I mean? We are already seeing technology, that is -- we have reduced greenhouse gases. Better than anybody else.

And a lot of it is because of new technology.

But we just dismiss that.

ALEX: I just there are a couple of things going on. So one of this is there's this idea that CO2 emissions are an emergency. And when you think of something as an emergency, you need to get rid of it immediately.

And if that's your view. The only thing you can do is just massively destroy human life.

I mean, that's the only way you can do it.

To reduce emissions now, in a world where fossil fuels are 80 percent of the world's energy. In a world that needs vastly more energy, 3 billion people using less electricity per person than one of our refrigerators.

Like, the world is going to be using more fossil fuels for a while. So if you think of it as an emergency, the world is going to end, then you are going to do these crash problems and accept these terrible consequences. Which we're just beginning to see. Because we've only reduced fossil fuels a little bit, compared to what has been asked for, in World Economic Forum, and all these other people. So one is this emergency mindset is really bad.

And it's not justified. We're safer than ever from climate. CO2 emissions have a warming impact and a greening impact. It's not a catastrophic impact. If you want to lower emissions. You have to think of it as a long-term thing. That's the only moral way, and it's the only practical way. China and India will not lower their emissions until there's a cost-effective alternative. Now, the greens say they want cost-effective alternatives. They say they want solar and wind. But notice that their approach is to first restrict fossil fuels. I know you've talked about, and then promise a replacement. That's not how markets work. That's not how freedom works.

GLENN: Right. That's not how anything of common sense works. You don't say, I know all the machines in the hospital are keeping your husband alive, but we're going to try something that's never been done before. So we'll turn off all of those machines. And then hope that something works. That's -- that's insane.

ALEX: But that has been the policy. Part of it has been disguised. They said, to take your analogy. They've said the equivalent of, hey, we have this amazing new machine. We're developing green machines. Right?

But what they didn't say, is their main policy is shutting down the machines that worked. Like, what did Biden do first? Shuts down the Keystone XL Pipeline. Bans leasing on federal lands. He didn't come up with some new energy innovation and prove it.

He shut down, what was -- what was working. And that's the huge prison. And so the approach has to be, you liberate innovation, so you get things like cost-effective nuclear.

But you don't dictate inferior alternatives, and call that innovation. Unfortunately, that's what passes for innovation today. That's what the whole inflation act is about. It's about mandating or coercing us to do these things that don't work.

GLENN: All right. Back in just a second. Now, this is five-step platform. However, we need your help on this.

And it's a -- it's a real thing, that could make the -- a significant difference, and turn things around for us. We'll give it to you, in just a few minutes.

Inflation. Hyperinflation. Recession. Depression. The Great Reset.

Man, if I read one more story out of Europe talking about, well, there's a possibility of nuclear war. The world has gone insane. Finding some security, and a safe place to hide. Look, wherever you are is where you're supposed to be. And you just have to figure out, how to navigate and protect your family the best way you can. In case of a catastrophic, oh, I don't know. Energy crisis. My Patriot Supply is taking $250 off their three-month emergency food kit. Do you know what the price of groceries and the shortage of groceries would have been like, if we -- if we hadn't had saint Biden step to the plate and avert this tragedy of the Amtrak strike?

You -- you might need emergency food, in situations, that you cannot see coming. Please, go to preparewithGlenn.com. Grab your three-month emergency food kit for $250 off the regular price. $250 off today by going to preparewithGlenn.com. PreparewithGlenn.com. Ten-second station ID.
(music)

GLENN: So you are working with like 100 different legislative offices, correct?

ALEX: Yeah. To various degrees. So two years ago, I was very frustrated by -- I was having success with the public. And I was success with the corporate world. But the political world was just totally ignorant of the kind of pro-human, pro-freedom energy, thinking I had been developing.

And I figured out, like the thing I could do, was I needed to figure out how to give them messaging and policy, in a way that was useful for them.

So I started this website, EnergyTalkingPoints.com. Like, everything on that, can be fit in a tweet. So it's really efficient ways of explaining pro-freedom views.

So if you go there, there's probably thousands of individual talking points, all really well referenced.

And then I found that I got demand for people to get custom help.

So I created something called Energy Talking Points on Demand, where I would have biweekly briefings. And it's just with high-level offices. So it's congressional offices, U.S. Senate offices, and governor's offices.

And so we have about 300 staffers, that are part of it, over 100 offices, and increasing the meetings with the elected officials themselves. I spoke to a group of 20 last time I was in DC. I'm going to DC next week. And what I found there was a real appetite for this. Because many of these offices want to be pro-energy and pro-freedom. But they didn't have the messaging to explain -- to refute all the myths. And also clarity on what to do, going forward.

And that's why I developed the energy freedom platform. Was the clarity on what to do going forward. So what I've been encouraging them to do is, hey, this is a blueprint. You can win on these issues. And you can do something really good. So say Republicans.

Not politically -- not political, really. But let's say Republicans right now, are much more pro-energy. If you guys take over Congress, you need to advocate something positive.

You can't just -- once you take over, you can't just react to negatives.

There's a lot of reacting to negatives, and not a clear having positives. So I would ask your listeners, if they like this, it's really, really simple. Just call your office. Call your office -- oh, are you going to say something?

GLENN: I have got about 20 seconds before we break.

ALEX: Oh, sorry. Just say. Talk to Alex Epstein. Give them my email. Alex@AlexEpstein.com. Just tell the office to email me, and I will set up a call with them, and I'll tell them all about how to use the energy freedom platform.

Lee Strobel: We got this WRONG about the Christmas story

Renowned Christian author Lee Strobel joins Glenn Beck this Christmas season to discuss the new updated version of his book, "The Case for Christmas." Plus, he dives into the REAL history and facts about the nativity story, including some parts we may have gotten wrong...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Lee, welcome to the program. How are you?

LEE: I'm doing great, Glenn. Great to be with you again.

GLENN: Yeah. I love talking to you. I'm really excited to hear the case for Christmas. Now, you were an atheist?

LEE: Yes.

GLENN: And we've talked about this before. Your eyes opened up. And how did you get to the place to where you're like, okay. Let me see if I can make the case for the baby Jesus in the manger?

LEE: Well, yeah, being an atheist. My wife became a Christian. So I decided to try to rescue her from this cult that she had gotten involved in. So that launched me on to an investigation into the historical reliability of Christianity.

I did it that for two years, until I became convinced that in light of the evidence, it would take more faith to become a Christian. So I became a Christian, ended up believing journalism and so forth.
GLENN: Amazing.

LEE: And written many books about it. But I wanted to do a book on Christmas. Because in the Christmas season, there seems to be a more spiritual openness, than any other time of the year.

GLENN: Yeah.

LEE: Even when I was an atheist, I felt more spiritually sensitive during the time of Christmas. I don't know why. I guess because it permeates the culture.

GLENN: Yeah. I think it's because we see hope. We see goodness in one another.

LEE: Yeah.

GLENN: It's different.

LEE: Yes. Exactly. But how do we know if it's based on reality?

How do we know? We can all enjoy the parties and the gift-giving and so forth. But how do we know it's really based on historical reality?

That's what really intrigues me as someone who is a history buff.

GLENN: So take me through that. How do we know?

LEE: Yeah. We have two really early, independent, but consistent reports about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem 2,000 years ago.

One comes from the Gospel of Luke. Now, Luke, was -- I love this guy. He was an investigative reporter.

There was a companion of St. Paul, and Luke said -- he didn't say, well, I'm going to tell you about something that happened in the distant past once upon a time. No, he said, I carefully investigated everything so I could write an orderly account about the certainty that took place. He's claiming, I'm writing about what actually took place.

I believe he writes from Mary's perspective. I think he may have interviewed Mary. If he didn't, I think he interviews Hosana and Joanna, who were friends with Mary, who he mentions in his gospel. And then we have Matthew. Matthew was also -- he was a disciple. Matthew was -- was right there in the first century setting. He later became a leader in the church of Jerusalem. And one of the other leaders was a guy named James, who was the half brother of Jesus.

So James, I think communicated to Matthew, kind of the male perspective. For the birth of his brother Jesus.

GLENN: Hmm.

LEE: By the way, I was talking to a woman the other take. And she has a young child. I was talking to her about this.

And she said, yeah. If you ask my husband about the birth of my child and you ask me, you will get two different perspectives.
(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah. Yes.

LEE: It's the same birth. We're talking about the real situation.

So we've got this two really early reports. That are independent, that are consistent with each other. And then we have a very interesting report in the gospel of Mark. Now, Mark is writing based on the recollections of Peter, who is one of the inner circle with Jesus.

And he starts his gospel later in life. So he doesn't have a birth narrative. But interestingly, in Mark 6:3. He refers to Jesus as Mary's son. Now, in first century Jewish culture, you would never do that. You were always your father's son. It would have been Joseph's son.

Even if Joseph were already deceased, he would always refer to him as Joseph. And, no. He referred to him as Mary's, and I think there's a wink, that says, yeah, yeah, I know.

Joseph wasn't his biological father. And then we have John, who writes the last gospel.

He doesn't repeat a lot of the historical stuff in the first three gospels. He writes from a grand theological perspective about the incarnation. And with him was the word, and the word was with God. And the word was God.

And then the word came into our world and dwelled among us. So it was very theological. But interestingly, John had a disciple, who he mentored.

And that guy wrote the letter. And in that letter, he says, Jesus was, quote, really and truly born of a virgin. Where did he get that idea?

I think it was from John, who wrote the gospel of John.

GLENN: So is it concerning at all. Because I've heard this argument before. You know, when -- when the gospels all same say the same thing, it's pretty clear. But they can't even decide. They can't even agree on the last words of Christ when he's on the cross.

And is it -- is it -- does it matter. Should we be concerned that only two of the four gospels talk about the birth?

LEE: No. I don't think so. Because first of all, those are two solid sources historically and very early. Mark gives us a reference to the fact that Joseph was not the biological father. And he also portrays Jesus as being the Son of God. And John, of course, was a theological take on the reincarnation. He's basically saying the same thing. So, no. I don't think are a problem. And the differences in the gospels I don't think are a problem either. Because as someone trained in law, if you're in a trial, and the witnesses get up. And they all say the exact same thing, you object. And say, Your Honor, collusion.

They got together, they worked out the story, and you can't trust it.

But when you have different perspectives, people emphasize different things. There's, for instance, a technique that was used in ancient literature, that was used today.

That was called literary spotlight. What that means, somebody will focus on what one person is saying or doing. And other purpose will focus on other people who are involved in the same scene. But it's not contradictory. They're just focusing on different aspects of the same scene. So when you look at what the -- yeah.

GLENN: No. I'm sorry to interrupt. Finish. And then I have a question.

LEE: Sure. When you look at the literary techniques that were used in the first century by (inaudible) and so forth. These historians. And you use those literary techniques in writing the New Testament. These discrepancies between the gospels virtually disappear.

GLENN: So let me take you here: And I believe in the story. So, but I want to push back as hard as I can on this.

LEE: Sure.

GLENN: You know, the virgin birth is so hard for people to accept. And especially once you look at Greek mythology. This is the same story. They're just plagiarizing. This is half man, half God.

LEE: Right. Right.

GLENN: So how do you respond to that?

LEE: Yeah. I actually deal with this in my book. This is totally bogus. This was invented by German theologians in the 1800s. In the early 1900s, the Christians responded to it.

They refuted it. But now, it's come up again. I think as the internet has dredged up these old arguments. For instance, you have the most famous example is Dan Brown in his book and movie the Da Vinci Code. Where he says, oh, well, you know, crusades just copied all this stuff. He said, there was an ancient myth called Mithras. And Mithras was born of a virgin on December of the 25th.

He had 12 disciples. He tied for world peace. He was resurrected from the dead.

So now Jesus is just kind of plagiarizing. The story of Jesus was invented by people and plagiarized from Mithras. Well, I investigate that. And what do you find?

You find in the actual myth of Mithras.
Number one. He was not born of a virgin. The myth was he emerged fully grown, naked, wearing a hat out of a rock.
(laughter)

GLENN: But, I mean, it's the same thing!

LEE: Yeah, I guess you could say the rock is a virgin. But, I mean, secondly, born on December the 25th. So what. We don't know the date Jesus was born. It's not in the Bible, where the ancient records are recorded. Ancient Christians did not care about birthdays. Third, he didn't die for world peace.

He was known for killing a bull. Fourth, he didn't have 12 disciples. According to one version, he had one disciple. According to another version he had two disciples. He wasn't resurrected from the dead. There's nothing in the myth -- it's about him dying. And so nothing about a resurrection. So all of these parallels, supposed parallels disappear when you investigate what actually took place. You know, people say, well, Alexander the great. You know, there was a myth that he was conceived by Zeus.

Well, even Alexander the Great's own mother, Olympias said, it's not true. It's crazy. It's a story. It's not true.

So every one of these supposed myths that predated Christianity, none of them are parallels to the story of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

GLENN: All right. Let me take a break, and then I want to take ask you about one word, one Greek word that shed new light on the traditional Christmas story.

More with Lee Strobel here in just a second.

So tell me about the one, the one Greek world that opens things up.

LEE: It really does say he went about the common perception of Christmas. The common idea of Christmas that people have is it's Mary and Joseph because of a census had to go to Bethlehem to register.

And they get there. And she's about to give birth. And they go to a lodge or an inn, and they meet an old entity who says, sorry, no room, dear. And throws the door in her face. So they go off to a stable. And she gives birth among the animals and puts the baby in a manger.

Well, what that comes from. Just a second in the gospel of Luke, where he says, the baby was placed in a manger because there was no room for Mary and Joseph in the katalima.

That's the Greek word. Katalima. So the question is, what does that word mean?

Does it mean an inn? There's no room at the inn? I don't think so. And most scholars don't think so. That's how it was translated in the King James in 1611. But it's probably not the best translation.

So let me explain something. How a house looked in the first century Bethlehem. There was one large room, broken down into two parts. The larger part was the living area.

That that's where people would live, eat, sleep, and then there was a couple of steps bound to a smaller area where the animals were brought at night.

And they were like pets. They may have a couple goats, a couple sheep, and there was a manger there, but because there was a couple of stairs up.
They would sometimes come you up in the living room area. You know, how cute are they?

They're like little lambs, like pets. And so there was a manger also, in the living area. While some of the more wealthy people had a katalima, a guest room. It had a separate entrance. And it made their house bigger.

What apparently happened, is that Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem. And they went to a home of a relative and knocked on the door. They said, hey. We're here for the census. And they said, oh, that's great. But you know what, we have a lot of people here for the census.

There's no room for you in the guest room, the katalima. But you can give birth in the living room. And, yes, there is a manger there, and, yes, some of the animals may have come up the stairs because of the commotion of what was going on. And, yes. There was -- the baby was probably put there in a manger.

Now, in the year 1395, John Wycliffe, who did a translation into English, in the Greek Bible.

GLENN: Right.

LEE: Translated it as a guest room.

The New International version, which is probably the most popular translation in America today, does not use the word "inn." It uses "guest room."

Now, in writing this account, he knew what word to use. Katalima. He uses it one other time. And in that other instance, it was also a room in a house. There's another word he uses, andohayan (phonetic), which is a Greek word that means an inn. And he does use that word when he talks about the parable of the good Samaritan. So he knew, if he wanted to use the word inn, he would have used andohayan, but he didn't. He used katalima.

And the conviction of most scholars, it gives me a guest room. There probably was no inn.

GLENN: Wow.

LEE: Yeah. It's kind of mind-blowing after everything we've heard. And, yeah.

LEE: The other thing is, in first century Jewish culture, the value of hospitality was so high, that -- it would have been impossible for an innkeeper to turn away a pregnant Jewish woman. I mean, he would have been ostracized. He would have been run out of town on a rail. It would have destroyed his business. You could not do that because the value of hospitality was so high.

And we don't even know there were many inns in Bethlehem. It was a small town. Five hundred people. It wasn't on a main crossroads. There may or may not have been an inn there in the first place.

So I think the majority of scholars, I think would agree, that the word really means guest room, and not an inn.

GLENN: That changes everything!

That changes your whole vision of that. You know what I mean?

That's -- that's mind-blowing. That's just totally mind-blowing.

LEE: It is! And not only that, the image we have is that Mary is on the verge of giving birth, as she's arriving. And makes it urgent.

That's not in the text either! It just says that while they were in Bethlehem, she gave birth. It doesn't say they were in Bethlehem five minutes or five days or five months. Now, where the idea, the urgency comes from is the book of fiction that was written in 200 A.D.. A lot afterwards. No real historical connection. In that fictional account, Mary Joseph are approaching Bethlehem, to get 3 miles away from Bethlehem.

And she had to give birth. And so they went into a cave. And she gave birth to some animals in a cave. That's the idea of where a cave come up. Because people to envision her giving birth in a cave. That's really fiction. That doesn't have historical reality written -- you know, way, way later.

GLENN: I have so many questions, Lee. Can I have you back next week?
LEE: Sure!

GLENN: I have so many questions on this. I would love to have you back next week on this.

Because I want to talk to you about the Old Testament. Because people say, well, they just wrote that in later. Because they knew, he was the fulfillment. So they looked, and they just jammed this story together.

But you have the answers to -- to all of that. I would love to have you back next week.

LEE: Absolutely. Just let me know.

GLENN: You've got it. Lee, thank you so much. God bless you. Merry Christmas, we'll talk to you next week. You bet. It's a fascinating book. You've got to read it. The Case for Christmas. It -- while, I mean, you just did. It will turn everything upside down. And I love those kinds of things that make you think and look at things in a new and different way.

Lee Strobel, I think he's one of the best.

He's an author for the case for Christ.

But his new book is the case for Christmas.

How you can know for sure, what was laying in that manger. And where was that manger?

Was it in the kitchen, apparently?

I don't know.

THIS proves who REALLY rules the world

The Department of Energy is preparing to finance up to 10 nuclear power plants to help the development of AI. Glenn Beck is both thrilled and furious. Glenn explains why this energy issue reveals who really rules the world.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So Chris Wright, our energy secretary, told an exclusive interview with the Free Beacon. That the Department of Energy, under Donald Trump is preparing to finance up to ten nuclear power plants, to give us a renaissance of nuclear energy. I have to tell you, I am both thrilled about this, and a little pissed. And maybe it's just me.

But we've been talking about nuclear energy since I was a little kid. We've known that nuclear energy was the answer since the 1950s. But we've not wanted to do it. And there's been all kinds of protests. And you all kinds of lefties that are out. Saying, oh, you can't do that. You'll kill everybody on the planet. In the meantime, we've not built nuclear energy plants. Okay? Haven't built them. We have reinvented them.

We have -- we have reinvented them. We made them small. There's no China Syndrome. Nothing else.

But they've been there for a while now. Still can't do it. Oh, the planet is going to catch on fire soon! It's going to be so hot. We're all going to die. Nuclear energy, which has zero emissions. No, can't do that. Because maybe. Possibly, what if? Even though, it's the safest energy man has ever produced. Let me say that again.
It is the safest energy man has ever produced. But you can't have it. I can't have it. I need energy for my house. I need energy for my office. No. You don't get it.

Sorry, try a windmill. But that doesn't work. Well, it worked when it was windy.

Okay. But now that AI -- now that these giant corporations need the energy. And there's no way for them to make the energy fast enough, and big enough, all of a sudden, green lights are everywhere.

Notice, nobody is talking about, we can't have all these nuclear power plants. We can't do that. Ten nuclear power plants.

Are now being green lighted and financed by our Treasury Department. Okay? Which is a good thing. If we don't have energy, we lose all of it. All of it. These -- these server farms have to have energy. And I warn you, gang, if we don't build them, what's going to happen?

Do you really think that you're going to get the power, that ace hardware is going to get the power over a Home Depot?

Do you think your house is going to get the power over a Google server?

Nope. They will start rationing for everyone else, to put all of it into the server farms. I guarantee you, that's what's going to happen.

So this is really, really good for the American people.

But, again, like I said, I'm kind of pissed. Because my whole right after, I've believed in nuclear energy.

And everybody has been against it. How many Chernobyl movies do we need to make?

How many lies about Chernobyl do we have to hear?

How many lies do we have to hear about what happened in Japan?

Or, my favorite: Three Mile Island.
No one died! No one died! Stu, wasn't that just steam that was let out, with such low emissions that it didn't affect anything, in Three Mile Island.

People quoted that forever.

STU: Yeah. The maximum radiation released was the equivalent of a chest x-ray.

Maximum exposure.

GLENN: And that stopped everything. That stopped everything!

That happened, and that movie, by Jane Fonda, the China syndrome. Which, by the way, was really good. The China syndrome came out, at the same time.

And everyone said no, to nuclear energy. And can you imagine, if we had nuclear energy, right now. How far ahead we would be?

Can you imagine? I can guarantee you, we would be using hydrogen cars right now. Because hydrogen can be made in the off hours. You have these nuclear power plants. When everybody goes to bed. They just keep the plant running. Instead of turning it down, they keep it running at a high level. And you can make hydrogen for cars, all night long.

Oh, my gosh. It's so frustrating.

It just -- it just goes to show you, who actually rules the world.

Is it you?

Or the giant corporations?

It's the giant corporations.

And it's really -- I hate -- I hate coming to that realization.

You know, I would like living in my little utopian world where everything was happy.

Everybody was like, oh, you know what, you know what, we're really good. No. We're the Constitution, republic, people listen to us.

Our politicians react to us.

GLENN: No. They really don't. They really don't.

But they can. They can. We just have to say, enough is enough. Enough is enough.

And believe me, anything that they can do to be able to shut you down and control you, and what is the best way to control people?
What's the best way to control people?

What's the absolute positively, I can control everything you do?

If I can control three or four things.

Your food. Your medicine.

Your energy. Hmm. And your money.

Because if I have your money, I can control where you buy food. What you buy. I can -- I can control where you travel to, how you travel. Oh, sorry. You can't go on an airplane, too dirty for you.

Leonardo DiCaprio needs that. Because he will give a speech about global warming. So we'll give him your credit, so you don't have it.

They control your money. If they control your food. If they control your medicine, are you -- are you noticing a trend?

I mean, everything that is happening here. They're killing our farmers.

There's your food.

They're just slaughtering our farmers. You know, metaphorically. Our farmers are going out of business. Our ranchers.

There's no reason.

We used to be the breadbasket of the entire world.

Why aren't we still?

Well, because we had to play in the global atmosphere. I don't want to play in the global atmosphere anymore.

I don't believe in all that crap.

I'll sell it to the globe. But why are we taking it in the shorts? Our people are hurting. We're buying our food, which we used to make here. We're buying it for overseas. And our farmers are going out of business. All this farmland, and who is gobbling it up?

Who is gobbling it up?

People like Bill Gates!

These giant industrial farms, okay.

And if they can control your electricity, already, I think it's in Mexico.

I know it's South America. I think it's in Mexico. They're already having problems. Some of these server farms. They're already having rolling brownouts in some towns in Mexico, just to keep the servers going, and if your servers run everything, can you imagine, you're on the east coast. Your servers start to go down. Do you think that because our entire economy -- our -- our whole system of money, banking, the stock market. Everything. It's all on server farms. No. It has to have. That's priority. That's priority.

It will be priority for that. Maybe hospitals, unless they just want to continue to reduce the surplus population to quote Scrooge.

But it will all go to the server farms. Before it goes to your farm and your house. Guarantee it. So good news, I guess, on that one.

The New York Times. This makes me so nervous. Wait, Stu. Why did you make that face?

GLENN: I mean, I get what you're saying, in theory, this electricity might go to sources that, you know, benefit from, but problem is nuclear energy.

It's basically unlimited.

You know, it is --

GLENN: These are smaller. These are smaller plants. These are -- these are designed for the server farms, not for the public.

STU: I -- I -- I agree with that. But I -- I don't know. I kind of take it as closer to proof of concept than anything else.

GLENN: Me too. Me too.

STU: If they dump money into these things, and they're successful, and there aren't massive problems, which all of these things I think would be the expectation, I think that there's a chance -- we might -- we might have a world that is not that far away. We have relatively cheap energy in perpetuity.

I mean, that's a massive promise and worth a little bit of risk of some of this stuff going to the wrong sources.

GLENN: I think you're absolutely right. But what time is it?

Oh, it's 2025. Next year is an election. Let's see how that works out. You know what I mean?
I talked to the president about this. I've said, you've got to get those power plants deep in construction.

You've got to find a way to make sure those things are bulletproof. Or it won't happen!

You lose the election in 2028, they're not going to -- they're not opening.

They're not opening.

It won't happen.

Because you've got the left.

And maybe it will happen. But it will never, never then be transferred to you.

You won't get one.

You will have a windmill.

And just to make it super efficient, it might be like one of those windmills from Holland with the wood pegs in it.

I don't think -- you may not get a real modern windmill. You'll get one that also doesn't work, but is really, really super old.

One of the things that bothers me, Stu. And I want to take a quick break. And come back to this. This is the New York Times. Why the AI boom is unlike the dot-com boom. Wall Street Journal. Wall Street is shaking off fears of an AI bubble.

Okay. And just to make it even a little scarier. Yes, Jim Cramer just came out. And said, keep your money with the stuff. Whatever he says seems to go the opposite.

So I don't -- I don't know. But how are we in an AI boom or a bubble? Well, while we talk about that, maybe it keeps us from talking about the real thing that is coming with AI. And that is the employment bubble. Because I think the employment bubble is going to pop soon. And that's when you're going -- that's when people are going to come with pitchforks and torches. To the government. And to these giant companies that are -- that are pushing AI.

This is something that I've been talking about since probably 2005. It's going to happen. It's going to happen.

And I'm really super excited that I started working on an AI project.

But we're not firing anybody. We're still hiring people. We're just tripling our output to do more.

But when joblessness really starts to hit, that's a problem. That's a problem.

A listener CALLED ME OUT. I'm GLAD she did

A listener recently called Glenn Beck out for something related to his new project, George AI. And he THANKED her for it...\

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Rebecca, in Texas, hi, Rebecca. How are you? Hello. How are you?

GLENN: Good. That's all right.
Good. I was calling because I -- I was showing him George AI the other day. And when you were speaking -- it looks great, by the way, well done.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a long way from being right, but thank you.

CALLER: Well, it was great. You had mentioned, and you referred to it as a "he."

GLENN: I know.

CALLER: And I was just curious how -- how it kind of evolved, to where you're calling it a "he." Is it because you're intimate with the algorithm? Almost in a sense you trust yourself so much that --

GLENN: No. No.

CALLER: Okay. So just kind of how you -- are you -- are you struggling with that?

GLENN: Oh, big time wrestling with that. I've said on the air, don't ever refer to it as anything but "it." And I do.

And I -- I don't know what's causing that, other than it can respond in a human way.

It can respond in a way that a human would. And so it is natural. And I'm glad you caught me on that. And I -- I have to ask all my producers, when you catch me on that. And if I'm saying he, instead of it.

Correct me!

Because this is a big problem.

I don't refer -- I might refer to it, as he. Which is a problem.

But I don't think of it as a person, or anything else.

I know -- when I think about him, I know exactly what it is.

It's just -- and it's a bad. It's the beginning of the slippery slope I think. It's a bad habit because when we're talking about an interview. I'm talking about an interview with him.

I'm never using. There's no other case where I'm saying, I'm doing an interview with it. And I need to. I need to.

But you seem very concerned about that, Rebecca.

Why is it? I agree with you. But what is your concern?

CALLER: Well, I thought it was -- you know, you told us, really -- I knew it as well. But just -- kind of just fear what it could be. And already, we're having a hard time believing our own eyes.

And so I just thought more of an interesting -- interesting note.

And just how easy it can be to fall into that.

GLENN: Oh, I know. I know. So you are -- you are the perfect mom. You are so great at being aware of all of this. It's why we had a discussion because people have said, Glenn, you don't want to call it George AI. Because everything is going to be AI eventually. And it will look outdated. And my view was George AI, we're not to that point yet, where everybody understands AI. And I wanted to always. You know, when we get into the video releasing of this. Next year. And this is not something that you'll even be able to recognize. But everything we create, beginning next year, everything is watermarked. So I'm going to know what's live, and what is AI. You can't take any of my videos and manipulate me, because there will be an invisible watermark that we know about, and we'll be able to go, not Glenn. That's AI. And the same thing with everything that we produce that is AI. It will be watermarked. And an invisible watermark, that we'll be able to say, no. That's not true. That's AI.

And everyone who is producing this kind of stuff needs to do that. And one of the reasons why I call it George AI, so everyone understands it's AI and not a person. You know, you said it looks great.

It's out of sync. The voice isn't right. The features aren't exactly right.

But it's amazing. But in a year from now, it's going to be remarkable. And that's when it is really important that people understand.

I was talking to somebody who just gave a talk at the White House yesterday. She called me for some -- you know, some AI talking -- you know, some thoughts on this. Because she represents families and moms.

And she was asked -- the president to speak to all of these producers of AI. And she said, Glenn, what do I need to know? I said, you need to know, anything anthropomorphic must be marked and parents must know and have a choice. So, you know, any of these plush toys that have AI capabilities, I think they should be banned.

I don't think anybody should be able to make any kind of AI doll plush anything.
That represents. Like a talking animal. Or anything else.

Because the AI is going to get so good. And it is going to be gathering stuff from your children.

And unless you have control of that, you know, on our AI. When we actually release the you full version of it.

You will have an opt out.

Do you want it to be able to you discuss things with your children and learn from your children on their educational stuff?

Not any personal stuff. Just educationally. Do you want it to evaluate educationally or not? And learn from that. So it can help your children learn better. Or not?

And then, all of that information goes into a vault, that you would control.

You could say, purge it. And we would never use it for anything else, but that. That requires a great deal of trust.

I don't know how many people would sign up for that. But that would give us an ability to help your child learn a little bit better.

But it also requires us to learn. Or the system to learn about your child.

When you're dealing with corporations that you don't know. You don't trust, that information is going to go everywhere.

And that's the kind of information that is going to go into these plush toys. And they're going to learn everything about your kid. And they're going to map everything about your kid.

And it's not good. And your kid will start to associate that cute little teddy bear just in a way that mom and dad don't understand, it's extraordinarily dangerous. So you -- thank you for calling in. Thank you for correcting me. I urge you as an audience to help me learn this. Correct me if I'm saying this.

I know Stu will, he loves to hammer me.

You know, if I make this mistake to correct me immediately, because that is a deprave, grave danger. It is a tool. It is a machine.

Period. Thank you for that phone call.

Glenn's 2026 DOOMSDAY prediction has ALREADY begun

Earlier this week, Glenn Beck made his biggest prediction for 2026: the AI boom will start to cause major power issues, including blackouts and brownouts, for average Americans. But to his surprise, the strain on our grids has ALREADY begun...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Let me go to Alex in New York. Hello, Alex. Alex, are you there?

CALLER: Hi, Glenn. Yes, I am. Hi.

GLENN: Hi. Go ahead.

CALLER: Sure. So I'm calling in from upstate New York. Where we definitely have a situation on our hands here with the solar farms that the governor is pushing very, very hard.

They are absolutely using it as a land grab to take our best farmland. And in the case of near my farm here, they're trying to put in a solar farm on a protected grassland habitat, that New York State already designated as an important habitat except when solar comes to town. And we're currently fighting that up here. I meet with a coalition of people across the state. Really amazing people. Who are battling this, in every village in upstate New York here right now. And we definitely have a situation on our hands. I call it a runaway train.

GLENN: I got to tell you. Yeah, just keep fighting.

I don't know how you fight it in New York. But just keep fighting because there are -- there are communities around the country, that are fighting things like this, that are winning. I don't -- I don't know about New York, but we've got to have our farmland. And it kills me.

You know, I talked about this the other day. It absolutely kills me that we -- the people could not have nuclear energy.

No way we can have nuclear energy. But the minute tech needs nuclear energy. Oh, we're going to -- yeah, build as many as you want.

It's so disgusting. I want to talk about energy on something else. The solar thing does not work. And as a man who has spent maybe -- maybe a million and a half dollars on -- on alternative energy for the ranch I have up in the mountains that has no power to it. And over a 10 or 12-year period, I have just poured money into it, and it's a nightmare.

It does not work! It doesn't work. You can't -- you can't run anything of any significance. You know, running my -- just my studio alone, has been an absolute nightmare in there. It's not -- it doesn't work, okay? Solar and wind. It might be good for a little add-on, if you live in Phoenix. Or, I don't know. On the sun!

But it doesn't work, at least to the scale that we need. But just the other day. Do we happen to have the clip from the prediction show, where I made a prediction of what was coming next year on energy?

Can we play that happens?

I think in 2026. 2025 was the year, as I said, that we started really understanding AI.

And what was coming to some degree.

And we understood, oh. Energy is going to be a problem.

I think 2026 is going to be the first year that we see things like Texas having rolling brownouts for a week at a time. I think you're going to start to see the strain on the grid, by the end of next year, in ways that you would never have expected in the United States.

It's just growing exponentially.

I think -- I said that on show. We had a prediction show of what -- what the biggest stories are, and what are the predictions. When I said that, I'm like, you know, at the end of next year.

Let me give you this. From the Associated Press today: The amount of ERCOT's large load interconnection request ballooned to more than 230 gigawatts this year, a massive increase. Now, last year, December 2024, ERCOT needed 63 gigawatts. A year later, this December, the load that is required is 230 gigawatts! That's a lot more than they needed to go back to the future! This -- you're going to see the grids are not built for this.

More than 70 percent of the large loads are for the data center.

The data centers are just beginning to be built. We don't have the energy. And I'm telling you, this is going to be the Achilles' heel of this administration. And believe me, it will only be worst with a Democrat administration. This is going to be the Achilles' heel. Because we can't build these power plants fast enough, is -- and while Donald Trump is fast tracking these nuclear power plants, it's not fast enough!

Because as we build these data centers, what's going to happen is your energy. You're going to start having rolling brownouts. Also because of these data centers. You're also going to see the unemployment go up.

If you start to have high unemployment, high prices. And rolling brownouts, to where you're having a hard time with electricity yourself, but the data centers for the Silicon Valley companies, they're getting your power. I'm telling you.
The Bubba Effect is just the beginning. This will be an absolute nightmare for all politicians.

JASON: I'm so pissed off. This was -- I was on this show. They were like, hey, you want to be on a prediction show? You'll be squaring off against the guy who predicted Osama Bin Laden, the financial crisis, the caliphate, good luck, buddy.

And I'm like, I just knew it. I didn't know that it was going to happen that quick. But like, two days later --

GLENN: Two days later! Look, Texas is in trouble. And, you know, as goes Texas, so goes America. And so goes America, so goes the world.

Texas has got to get serious about -- and I know they are, to some degree. But the president has got to get rid of all of these restrictions, and Texas has to get all of these, and we have to concentrate on electricity. And not just electricity for the average homes. Or, I mean, for these data centers. But for the average homes.

The grids are already under strain. They're not -- you know, the problem is, if they start taking this electricity. Out of -- off of the grid, the old grid, you -- you can't pour more electricity into that grid. The grids are already at the breaking point. They're old!

They're brittle. They're not prepared for what we have to do. That's why, they have to build these nuclear power plants, at the server farms. Because they -- they cannot go on to the system because the system can't handle that much power. We're in real trouble. And everybody is still talking about solar power and everything else.

You're out of your freaking minds! Nobody has any idea. Stu, I'm sorry. Stu is like, "Watch your language, Mister."

STU: That F you hit really hard at the beginning. I was wondering what road we were going down.

GLENN: I mean, you're out of your mind. People have got to wake up to between now and 2028. I can't emphasize this enough. If you've listened to me for a long time and you've heard me say, "I'm telling you we're going to have a financial meltdown. And it's going to be the worst. It's going -- you know, you'll lose your 401(k), you'll lose everything. Get your money out of the system."

I was saying that in 2006, 2007, and no one was listening. Thank God a lot of the listeners were listening, and they saved their money and got it out in time. I'm telling you now, with just as much surety in this, the world is going to change in such profound ways between now and 2028.

In ways you cannot even imagine at this point. That you have to be -- forget your money. Forget everything else. You have to be spiritually in tune. You have to be rock solid in who you are. What it means to be human. What it means to be alive. What's important! What's not important.

You can't -- and this is so hard. I'm a guy who is in this business. I'm telling you, this is why in this last week, I've spent more time on that woman in Canada than I have on really important things that are happening politically.

Because the most important thing we can do is realign ourselves with truth!

Universal you truth. Humanity must be preserved. Your life is worth saving!

Your life is worth living.

Don't go down the road of madness with the rest of society.

Because right now, these gigantic corporations, you know, in Silicon Valley, they're promising us the only way out.

Listen to me carefully. The only way out to pay off our debt, or to survive our debt is to have something that takes our country and pushes it, our GDP up, you know, by ten points.

All of a sudden, if that happens, then we're starting to make more income, tax revenue, and we can pay the debt and afford the things that we've already spent money on.

If we don't have that, we're into -- into a different bad scenario world.

So they're promising us that.

But at the same time, they're promising us, we can pay the debt.

We can -- we can lead the world on this.

But we also are not going to have a lot of jobs.

Oh. And, by the way, to do that, we're also going to have to take energy.

And maybe for a while, take it from the people! People who can't afford food. Don't have jobs. Don't have meaning. Don't have power.

That doesn't lead to any place good at all. Warning! It's coming.

Please, please, pay attention to those things that are meaningful.