RADIOSeptember 19, 2024

Explained: Why the Fed lowering interest rates might be a BAD sign...

The Federal Reserve just lowered the interest rate by half a point, the first time it has been lowered since 2020, and only the 2nd time it has been lowered by half a point since 2020 and 2007. Is this an accommodative move, or just another restrictive move to try to avoid disaster for as long as possible? Recovering investment banker Carol Roth joins to break down what this lowering means, the possible good and bad signs for why this is happening now, how it'll affect you and your bank account, and what we must continue to look out for.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Carol Roth.

I'm hoping you can make sense. And maybe some good news out of what happened yesterday.

Because I can't find a way to it. Because of the history of cutting the interest rate this much.

My first thought is, this is election interference by the fed.

My second thought was, when did they last do this?

And it didn't -- neither of those things lead to good things.

So what's really going on here, Carol?

CAROL: Well, I just want you to know, Glenn. I'm unburdened by what has been. Now the market, in terms of interest rates. Because we are in a rate cutting environment. And I think the important thing to remember is that when we talk about, you know, rate hikes. Rate hikes.

Anything the fed is doing. We have to keep it in context. And the backdrop is that we came out of 15 years of what's called zero interest rate policy.

Where the interest rates were at or near zero.

Unprecedented. As well as the fed putting $9 trillion, plus on its balance sheet.

So this is an unprecedented -- does not have analogue, that we can directly compare to.

Not to say, it's not important to go back, and look at what happened historically. But it doesn't mean exactly the same thing.

And cutting 50 basis points. And half a percent today. Is different than we are cutting it. When interest rates are at 2 percent.

I just want to put that out. Also, somebody, who as we said, on this program many times. That I think the Fed has been way behind the curve. I think they went up too high. And that they were too slow, to cut to begin with. So we'll put that from a backdrop standpoint.

So how does the market interpret, and how should individuals interpret a cut?

Well, there's potentially the bad. And potentially the food. We'll walk through both of those real quickly.

The potential bad is the signal.

When you are saying that the economy is doing amazing. And is just -- you know, it's ripping along.

And then to do a very large cut. They could have done half of that. They could have done 25 basis points. But to come out after not doing anything. And say, oh, we have to move 60 points.

Can send a signal, to say things aren't going so well.

If you looked at the market, yesterday, they were not taking news.

GLENN: It went up, and then when he cut it, it went way down.

CAROL: And once they gave back all the gains yesterday. But today, they have had a day to digest it.

And the market thinks that this is a good thing. Now, the market is not the economy.

GLENN: Yes.

CAROL: But again, after 15 years of zero interest rate policy, you know, it does make sense for us to get back to say to what is considered a neutral rate.

GLENN: Is this a -- is this an inflationary move though?

CAROL: So that's the question. So if you think about what the neutral rate is. Which is theoretical. We don't know the number. But basically, it's the dividing line between policy that is restrictive and policy that is accommodative.

And what we're trying to do is have the Fed have no influence in either direction. I believe that we are still in that restrictive area.

So bringing it down, from -- two, four, and three-quarters, to 5 percent. Again, is not the same as bringing it down to 2 percent.

And so I don't think that will cause inflation. We have to remember too, again, going back to where I started. Companies and individuals have 15 years.

To take out debt. And basically no cost.

This is sitting on company's balance sheets.

They took every piece that they could.

And consumers right now, don't have a lot of runway.

So the idea of, you know, a rate cut, unleashing massive demand, when we've gone to, you know, three-quarters to 5 percent.

I don't see this as something that is going to unleash massive demand.

GLENN: Okay. Here's. Here's. I would just like your opinion on this.

As a businessman. I know, I wouldn't be spending a dime right now, on hiring. Building. Anything.

Not a dime, until I see what happens at the election. And depending on the election, if we go with Harris, and we become much more restrictive, and harder, and more global, and everything else.

I'm -- I mean, I'm just battening down the hatches. If Trump gets in.

I would be willing to they have. Because all right. Good. We have somebody who understands business.

We can hire some more people, et cetera, et cetera.

I don't see anybody making those moves rationally, no matter what the interest rate is.

At this point. Do you?

JASON: I think that's a logical way to digest it. I think in terms of one of your first statements. Is this term, political.

The Biden Harris administration, will be pushing out and saying, look, we have inflation under control.

The Fed said so, otherwise we wouldn't have lowered it or lowered it by so much.

So I think that is the push that they are going out and trying to convince people. Now, they've been trying to convince people of things that makes absolutely no sense, for the last three and a half years. So if I'm a businessperson.

Do I go ahead ask make the investments?

But are there some people that might? It is a push. I think the challenges. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That if you get worried. That there is a recession.

And you create these restrictive behaviors. That becomes self-fulfilling. And that's one of the things that we end up worrying about.

GLENN: Correct.

So let me ask you about one more thing.

He mentioned the problem with unemployment. Unemployment is going up.

Because you just added 70 to 20 million people to the country.

Is -- I mean, people are saying, anecdotally that -- and we are I guess, seeing it in numbers, that the jobs that are being filled. Are being filled with illegals.

And not American citizens. How long can that go on, before it's just, you know, an absolute wreck?

JASON: So the way that I've interpreted the economy. Is I see it as K shaped.

If you think about the letter K. You have one at that one part of the K that goes up. And the other part that goes down.

And you have the people who are at the lower end of the K. Who have been struggling. And the people who are at that higher part in the K. The asset holders.

The people with the white color jobs in the homes, who have been doing well. And you have to remember, what we've been seeing, is that it really is that higher part of the K, that has been pulling the economy along.

So not only do we have those illegals who are coming in. And creating drains on everything.

Right?

They're creating drains on employment. On the national debt.

On housing. On everything.

But we're also starting to see, these cracks in the white color labor market.

When you hear Amazon saying, oh, we want everybody back in the office.

It means that companies now have the power to demand that. When they didn't have the power. And buried in that statement was. Oh, we're trying to get rid of some managers.

We're seeing more and more layoffs on the tech side.

So if we see that crack, from the white-collar piece. I think, at least in the short-term. That will have the biggest impact on shifting what's going to happen here.

And I think that's what the fed is signaling they're trying to get ahead of.

Whether or not they can do that remains to be seen. Because usually they're always late. But it's true. We have the drag on both sides. We have that drag that's happening on the white color piece.

And then we have this massive illegal immigration that is putting strains on the system.

And, you know, that is going to you, you know, completely shift things.

And I will say, Glenn. We hear all these people talking about technology. And AI.

And how it's going to replace jobs. You know, if you think it's going to replace jobs.

Jobs it will replace are unskilled workers. Right?

The person who is making your burrito with Chipotlé and the like. You can possibly make an argument that we do not need any more legal immigration in this country, with the exception of some very high merit-based people at all.

In addition to this, you know, travesty that is happening with the illegal immigration. So this is going to be, you know, hopefully, we can get President Trump in there. But this needs to be attacked in a serious fashion. Because it will have massive implications on the economy. On top of the biggest issue. And it feeds right into it.

Which is the debt and deficit spending that continues to grow that debt. The fact that that's unwieldy. So all of these things are puzzle pieces. But we can't let the noise about a fed rate cut. Or what's happening. Distract us from that big issue. We need to grow the economy. And we need to reduce spending.

So we can get debt to GDP back to a normalized level. And be able to save our country.

GLENN: Carol, thank you. I appreciate it. Carol Roth. The author of You Will Own Nothing. Former investment banker and a contributor to Blaze.

And also, to this program. I just love her. She explains things the way, you know, people like me, talk. Who -- just regular people. Carol, thank you so much.

It's CarolRoth.com/news.

CarolRoth.com/news.

Nerdrotic Breaks Down Disney's Failed Snow White Remake

After years of controversy, Disney’s “Snow White” remake, starring Rachel Zegler and Gal Gadot, is officially a flop. ‪@nerdrotic‬ joins Glenn Beck to discuss the many, many places Disney went wrong and why he’s “ecstatic at this failure.” The film, which was made at the height of the woke movement, now feels “dated” and is chock full of “communist propaganda.” The seven dwarves, he says, “are the stuff of nightmares.” And it’s clear that Disney “doesn’t know what a Disney Princess is anymore.” Nerdrotic also reviews some of the other shocking changes Disney made to the 1937 classic, including who they replaced the “prince” with and what became of those “7 magical creatures” that Disney reportedly wanted to replace the dwarves with.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: And I want to talk to you because you might be as happy as I am at the failure of Snow White.

And I wanted to talk to you about what you're seeing with Snow White.

GARY: I'm ecstatic at this failure. It's been two years, and it's been one of many now, predictable Disney failures.

And it -- it's really built up to a head and been hit with the cultural zeitgeist. And it's more than just a movie at this point. Because normally I wouldn't even watch a princess movie, but it became such a punching bag in the culture war, and a symbol.

And Rachel Ziegler has become the symbol of everything that's wrong with modern Hollywood right now. And seeing it just crumble, does my heart good.

Because the universe tends to unfold as it should, Glenn.

This is the balancing act. This was a movie that was made before the cultural shift. Or during it, actually.

And now it just feels dated. And the audience has spoken. They were -- honestly, Glenn, every trailer that hit YouTube was getting ratioed into oblivion.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

GARY: Yeah. So Disney was telling you exactly what this movie was going to be. And the audience was telling them exactly what they thought of it. And now unsurprisingly, it's flopping.

GLENN: So, you know, you say this was made at the height of it.

And I think this is also, this movie, her reaction, the way they did all of it. I think this is part of the undoing of that era, as well.

GARY: Absolutely, and we've seen that play out in the last year. If we want to even go back to the Acolyte, or go back before that with the Marvels. These were movies made with the mindset of identity politics, intersectional feminism, which really goes against what Hollywood has done for hundreds of years, or 100 years.

Hundreds of years, sorry.

Which is, you know, tell good stories that are authentic.

And a lot of that is either the hero's journey.

Or just the good old-fashioned fairytale with some romance.

And Hollywood doesn't know how to be good, anymore.

They are so -- they are so black pilled. They are so dystopian. They are so nihilistic at this point.

That when you see something that is just good, that it -- it disgusts them.

And now, they -- while they're trying to fix stuff, they don't even know how to do it. They don't know what a hero is. Disney doesn't know what a Disney princess is anymore, which is crazy.

GLENN: Yeah, you know, it's funny. When I was working at CNN.

Stu, do you remember this with Hal? He was a great writer. I was working at CNN.

And I don't remember, maybe the funeral of Ronald Reagan was happening, or there was -- something was happening, an anniversary. And I was going out West for a week of shows, and I said to Hal before I left, I said, hey, next week, this is coming up. Can you write a really good piece on Ronald Reagan and America? He said, sure. I get this piece of garbage back. I mean, it was like, come on.

And I call Hal up. And I said, Hal, you're a good writer. What the heck happened? He said, Glenn, I've tried. I worked harder on that than I've ever worked on anything. But I have to tell you, I hated Ronald Reagan.

He said, so I didn't -- I don't know what people like about Ronald Reagan. And I understood then, you know, you can't fake it.

You cannot write -- these guys in Hollywood, they cannot reflect, you know, the right direction. Because they don't -- they hate it. And they don't understand it!

GARY: No. And it reviles them. The whole concept of a male hero, in particular.

We've seen -- what happens is masculinity has been drained out of Hollywood.

And it turns out, they needed it. That's what it was built on.

Now, it doesn't mean -- and so is femininity.

Which, you know, Snow White is essentially feminism versus femininity. And sure, yes. It's made in 1937.

But it boggles my mind that Disney took the film that built their empire.

GLENN: Yes.

GARY: That is a paradigm shift movie. That is sacred text in Hollywood.

And just threw away the original script and gave us -- and I'm not kidding. Communist propaganda.

GLENN: Why do you say that?

GARY: In Snow White.

Oh. It's filled with it. Throughout -- you get it in the second or third line of the film. They're introducing Snow White's parents, which was new. It's not from the original.

And they somehow run a socialist kingdom, where they run everything, but everybody has to share everything and everybody has to share in the bounty. Right?

And then, instead of Snow White meeting a prince, they replace the prince with a thief. And her desire is not to find a good man. It's to lead.

So, of course, we want to give her a career over maybe a fulfilling life, and it really does feel like -- well, they did. They did massive reshoots during the strike. So they tried to fix some of it, so it's kind of half a fairytale and half -- as the BBC says, Glenn, a Marxist call to arms. Even the BBC calls it out for its Communist propaganda, which is saying something.

GLENN: Jeez. So somebody said -- here's my favorite line from a review: Rachel Ziegler only gave -- only became a princess, and looked like a princess in the same -- in the same way, she looked like a product of incest.

So... anyways. Anyway.

Stu is telling me. He read a review.

Somebody said, even the background. It just looks. Everything looks fake.

I would imagine, that's because, didn't they have to strip all of the other people out of it, to replace all of the not-dwarf-style people out? And replace them with animation?

GARY: I think the dwarves were going to be in it all along. I think they were going back and forth on -- because they initially were going to cast them, and then they didn't. And then they -- the Peter Dinklage controversy happened. And I think they thought a good compromise would be to make them CGI, which makes them look like demons. They're the stuff of nightmares, but the bandits were always going to be in there. But their roles were greatly reduced.

GLENN: Hang on just a -- Stu, didn't we see pictures of like this tall guy out in the woods?

GARY: Yeah, those were the bandits. They were going to be part of it. And instead of a prince, Jonathan leads the bandits. And the bandits are just there, because they feel like all the food should be shared. And the bounty of the land belongs to everybody, who tends to it.

And it's such a clash of messages, where it's, again -- it's supposed to be some kind of socialist utopia. But except Rachel Ziegler's snow white is the boss. So we're not going to question that.

GLENN: So did they leave the evil queen? Is she evil? Well, she has to be, because she's a Jew.

GARY: Yes. She is. And Gal Gadot. And bless her heart, she does her best. She's not a very good actress. And it turns out, she's not a very good singer either.

But she's pretty.

But yeah. And some of the most iconic scenes from the original, because I rewatched the original before I saw this -- are gone. They're missing the I Am wishing song. And Some Day My Prince Will Come song. And they turn them into songs about leading. And her end, sorry to spoil it for everybody. The witch falls off -- lightning strikes. Nah, and she falls off.

No. She just gets sucked into a mirror at the end.

They extended role. But that's not good. I would have reduced the role.

GLENN: But there is a magic mirror.

GARY: Yes.

GLENN: And does the magic mirror tell you, you can be pregnant if you're a boy?

GARY: No. But maybe that was left on the cutting room floor. But they definitely left out the description of Snow White, where they said "her skin is white as snow." They left that out. I wonder why.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Thank you so much, man. I just had to talk to you today. Because I knew you would just be joyful.

As I was.

I was actually a little disappointed in the numbers. I was hoping it would do worse.

GARY: It will. It will.

The international numbers. These films do better internationally.

And they're doing terrible. So this is not going to have the life they want. And it's going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. The budget was 215, before marketing.

GLENN: What happens to Ziegler?

GARY: Oh, she goes to Broadway. That would be my guess. Her movie career is over. They're never going to put her on a red carpet again. She has -- that has been the well-documented, worst PR disaster in Hollywood history without a doubt.

GLENN: Unbelievable. Gary, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

GARY: Thanks for having me on, Glenn. You bet.

GLENN: You bet. That's Gary Buechler. He's from Nerdrotic. If you follow him. Nerdrotic. Nerdrotics. @Nerdrotics on Twitter, if you want to follow him. He's got some good stuff over at YouTube, maybe you should check out.

I enjoy his disdain for Walt Disney and the Walt Disney studios, because it's new to me. And it's kind of fun.

It's kind of fun to see them just kind of crash and burn on this.

I guarantee you, it won't change anything.

And I couldn't know?

Just like the democratic party. They let the rebels inside.

They let the revolutionaries inside. Thinking that, okay. Well, it's -- you know, we can control it. We're Disney. We can control it.

No. And now you've lost complete control of the company.

Just like the Democrats have lost -- well, there's a good, regular old Democrats. They disagree with all of the -- no, no, you don't. No, you don't.

Chuck Schumer is running like a scared little girl, you know, trying to look like he's tough. Like I'm a revolutionary, just like you.

And it's just so ridiculous to see. But they can't put that genie back in the bottle. And, I mean, I hate to use that metaphor with Disney, but it's true. They can't put that genie back in the bottle. It's over. It's over. How are you going to clean that place up, and get rid of all the revolutionaries? You can't. That's all that's there now.

Are Leftists Swatting Conservatives? What to Do if You're Targeted

Are conservative influencers being targeted by leftists who are calling in fake 911 emergencies? A disturbing number of prominent conservatives have been falsely swatted in recent days. So, Glenn sits down with his local sheriff, Bill Waybourn of Tarrant County, and he urges you to do the same. Sheriff Waybourn gives an update on how common these false flag calls have become and also says that Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi is "absolutely on board" with prosecuting people. He also weighs in on how "the Cartel is being shut down" by Trump.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: You know, if you have any doubt on which side in the country is dangerous. Both sides could be dangerous. But there is one side of the political debate. That has an actual active revolutionary army. And that is the left.

And we are seeing it. The earlier I played in the podcast. That the words of -- of Chuck Schumer. Who I guess he's trying to prove that he's manly or something.

But he is talking about. We are targeting Republicans in their own areas.

Which goes to some. He might just mean, like Sarah Palin meant, we're targeting, you know, through political process.

But there's too many people on the left, that are actually targeting. And let me give you this. A website called DOGE quest has published the personal information of Tesla owners, nationwide in -- in an apparent bid to shame and also intimidate them.

Because they're saying, you're a supporter of DOGE. And because you bought -- because you bought a car. Maybe you bought it because you believed in global warming.

I don't think you were probably on the Trump train, but okay. The site called DOGE Quest, reveals all of this information.

The operators who also posted the exact locations of Tesla dealerships said they will remove identifying information about Tesla drivers, only if they provide proof, that they sold their electric vehicles. Now, I don't know about you. But that sounds like the very definition of terrorism.

People have been doxxed. And there is something else that is happening.

And that is, people sending in S.W.A.T. teams. It's called swatting.

Let me just show you a montage here of some of the people that are being swatted. Look.

VOICE: Swatting against conservatives. We told you yesterday about Texas radio host Joe Pags being swatted.

VOICE: This morning, a growing number of conservative influencers are getting targeted by Schwartz.

VOICE: They were so urgent in getting the police to break down my door, and possibly kill me. In my doorway, they told them, I heard them on the scanner traffic, that he's bleeding out upstairs. Please hurry, and get inside.

VOICE: When I walked up to the door, he was pointing a gun at me. You know.

VOICE: We did just get swatted. The officer said they received a phone call that -- that somebody murdered somebody in the house and was planning a suicide by cop.

VOICE: And podcaster Nick Sortor also posted, both my dad and my sister were swatted tonight. A dozen cops attempting to kick my dad's door in at gun point.

VOICE: Yes, sir!

VOICE: Just a few hours ago, Infowars reporter and anchor Owen Shroyer was swatted at his home.

VOICE: And then most recently, Juanita Broaddrick posted, well, I just got swatted. About ten police and S.W.A.T. team showed up. They said the caller said there were two masked men and people said that had been shot.

GLENN: This is -- this is terrorism.

And those people who are making these calls, should go to prison for a very, very, very long time. Luckily, I know my sheriff in Fort Worth County.

I know, the guy who is protecting me and my neighbors. I know who he is. And he knows who I am, which, Sheriff Waybourn, welcome to the program.

That is the first key, is it not?

BILL: That is the first key, relationships are very, very helpful in these situations.

GLENN: So as we are sitting here, and I didn't mean Fort Worth, Tarrant County.

When we are sitting here, and you're seeing things like this happening, what -- what does that mean to you? And how you have to behave. And what you're walking into.

BILL: Right. When they get these urgent calls. They have got to respond. They have to be ready to go for law enforcement. In case it is real.

I will tell you, especially in the greater Fort Worth area. And the surrounding areas. They are very well aware of it.

There have been several of these. In this area, over the last year. There's probably been 15 or 16 cases.

GLENN: You're kidding me.

BILL: No. And I will tell you, they all turned out good. As far as law enforcement's reaction. Nothing went wrong or somebody got hurt. Because I think we've got some great law enforcement.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: But when they're rolling towards that. I mean, the Intel starts at the moment that the 911 phone is listening and the dispatchers are trying to listen for different clues about what might be going on there. And they're passing it on.

And then we have other intelligence which I won't make public.

GLENN: Yeah, sure.

BILL: But we're trying to do that. Now, we're -- there's some preventive things that we need help from the homeowner.

GLENN: Okay. Like?

BILL: Well, one is, let's hide your information. Because a lot of this is coming over the gaming systems. It's really big. That's like 95 percent of the gaming systems, where you don't know who you're gaming with. But they know who you are. So we've got to protect your identity. We've got to protect your privacy. And try to block all things that show who you are.

And maybe some double stuff, where you -- you have code words. Or stuff. So you know who you are dealing with.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

I tell you, the gaming systems are terrifying. My son, he was being groomed for this pedophile.

And luckily, we found out about it. And the FBI came into the house, and they took the gaming system. And they said, it's all happening through the gaming system.

Luckily, the gaming system has a record. And so, it's recording everything.

Can you -- have you found. Or can we find these people?

How come we can't find -- does it -- does it triangulate the phone, if you're on a cell phone, and you're someplace? And you're calling it into 911.

Can we find these people?

LIZ: Sometimes, we can find these people. Some of these people are oversees. They're not even here in the United States, but we go after them.

If you will pardon the term, with the gust of a hound dog, using all resources, both federal, state, and local resources, to try to locate them.
And find out who they are. And when we get our hands on them, we will prosecute them for the felony that they've committed.

GLENN: And what are you hearing from Pam Bondi and the federal?

LIZ: Well, ironically, I talked to her this morning, but we didn't get to discuss this. But she is absolutely on board, prosecuting people federally, if at all possible.

That's just the temperament of who our attorney general is.

GLENN: Yeah. I want to ask you. Because I don't know -- I met Pam. But I don't know her.

And I'm a little concerned that, you know, the Epstein thing.

I'm hoping, and maybe you can help me on this. I'm hoping that she said, wait.

We're not releasing these things right now. Because we have internal cleanup to do.

And we are also building cases, against these people.

And we want to release it, when we can say, and we're prosecuting. Do you think that's her approach?

BILL: I think that's absolutely probably her approach. She is a very, very smart woman.

And a great prosecutor.

And so she's doing the cleanup, as you say.

And I think that she is watching very carefully, what she can and can't do.

GLENN: What is the difference between the last administration and the recent administration?

In your position.

BILL: In my position, it's that the cartel is being shut down.

And, you know, I visited with the Director of DPS last week, and they're averaging a little less than 200 crossings a day on the entire Texas border.

You know, last year, at this time. We're talking 15,000 a day. So that's absolutely the first thing that I would say, is that is happening.

But also, that the administration is coming alongside of us.

And some other areas. Like, THC. The THC products that are such a threat to our kids these days did I see.

They're coming alongside of us. As Texas is trying to pass laws. And we're trying to absolutely curb that issue.

GLENN: You know, I look at what's happening in Mexico.

With these cartels.

And I would -- I would think, putting myself in the shoes of a Mexican.

I would think to myself, I can't say anything about these cartels.

I know people who have run against. And said, they will clean it up. And they're dead. And their family is dead.

I want this to happen, but I can't really say anything, and my government is in bed with it.

I think the Mexican people, the average Mexican person. If we go in and say, okay. Mexico, you didn't do anything about it. And we're killing them all.

I think they will turn and say, you know what, let's go concentrate on some other market. Not in America.

Because they're serious about it. And I think the Mexican people would be happy.

I know I would be.

I would be thrilled. Is that your take?

LIZ: That is absolutely my take.

And I know just last week, unfortunately, they lost five Mexican National Guardsmen who were ambushed and killed bit cartel just a few days ago.

So they're fighting back. And they're trying to do some things.

But as we know, that government -- you know, I've said this publicly.

Is I don't trust them.

GLENN: You shouldn't.

LIZ: You know, we need to see what they're trying to do. And hopefully, they will stand you up. The cartel has --

GLENN: Are they capable?

Are they capable? Every time somebody stands up, they're dead.

BILL: They're dead.

GLENN: So are they capable of standing up, as -- as, you know, politicians, or even a group of politicians? Because, oh, that's a death sentence for them.

BILL: That is a death sentence.

I agree with you. I've said over a year ago.

I said, what would you like to happen? When the conservative president comes in.

I said, on or about Day 15 or 20, that the cartel is woken up by the 82nd Airborne.

And that I think we go in and clean them out, would be best for everybody.

GLENN: You think that's coming?

BILL: I don't know, because our president is unpredictable.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

BILL: But he has labeled them terrorists. So they are on notice, and I think anything is possible. And if I was a cartel leader, I might say, okay. Guys, we're closing shop.

And we're moving. And where are we going? That's what --

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- you know, the pushback on sending somebody in, is that, well, they're just going to retaliate in our cities.

You retaliate in our cities, and then it gets much worse for you.

I think if we just take out a few families, the kingpins.

BILL: That's right.

GLENN: And it all happens overnight, so fast. Everybody wakes up and says, oh, my gosh.

I really think. They won't retaliate. They will turn their attention someplace else.

Why risk that?

America is serious.

BILL: I agree with you, 100 percent. Because cartel ain't in business to be at war with America. They're in business to sell things.

GLENN: Right. Right.

BILL: And if it's not working out, you go to a different place. So I agree with you. I think that if we take out a few of the kingpins. A few of the leadership. I think that would do it.

GLENN: Are you concerned -- we just talked about swatting. Have we had any Tesla attacks or anything?

BILL: We have none, that I know of, in Tarrant County.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, that's -- used to be the conservative county. In -- in Texas.

But it certainly isn't anymore. Boy, we're on a razor's edge. I'm really, truly worried especially well Hollywood coming in. I'm very worried that we could lose Texas. People in Texas, that grew up in Texas, spent their whole life in Texas. And are not paying attention.

They think Texas will always be Texas.

It's -- it's on a knife's edge.

BILL: We need to always be on our game.

We need to always be working in -- and spreading our conservative values. And educating the public as best we can.

GLENN: Sheriff, always good to see you. Best to your family.

You bet. Sheriff. Bill Waybourn.

A -- a sheriff that if you don't have one like him, you should get one. You know exactly -- if you don't mind me sharing, sheriff. Before you leave.

I asked him at one point. What happens if the federal government comes in and starts taking citizen's guns.

And he said, well, if I may quote you.

The -- all my deputies need guns.

And I just have to deputize everybody in the county.

I just love that. I love that.

Thank you, Bill.

I appreciate it.

Kid Rock Embraces AI-Generated Music

Kid Rock tells Glenn Beck why he's excited about AI-generated music, which has already taken apps like Spotify by storm. While many in the music industry are worried that AI "artists" will replace human artists, Kid Rock says he welcomes AI-generated "Kid Rock" songs. The way he sees it, AI can generate hundreds of songs with his "voice." And if any of them become hits, he'll just play them on tour. Kid Rock also weighs in on Elon Musk's work with AI, including the viral video of the two testing out Grok. Watch the

FULL podcast HERE: https://www.glennbeck.com/glenn-beck-podcast/kid-rocks-white-house-america

What AI Got Wrong About the JFK Files

Glenn’s research team has been using the AI program Grok to sift through the newly released JFK assassination files. But so have many other people … and Grok’s analysis has been inconsistent. Glenn reviews multiple Grok summaries of the files and warns that you should NOT trust them without verifying everything. Some summaries include fake quotes about LBJ, the CIA, and Allen Dulles that would mislead anyone wondering who killed Kennedy. This is why AI must always be a tool, Glenn says, and never a source.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So I want to talk to you a little bit about something I found, I think it was yesterday. My researchers and I. And I -- I saw something on X. Somebody, a friend of mine sent this and said, wow. Look at this. It's happening. What Grok is saying, is happening with the JFK files.

And I read it.

And I -- my first thought was, wow. Next week's show. My next Wednesday night special is all built on JFK and the assassination.

In fact, could you go into my office, and go get the gun? Have somebody go into my office, and get the gun. But it's -- next week, we're going to do this.

And I read this from Grok. And I'm like, oh, my gosh. This is going to be one of the most amazing shows ever. If this is what it is. And here's what Grok says, first guess as to who Grok thinks is responsible for JFK's death.

Before diving into the detailed analysis of the players, blah, blah, blah, an educated guess. Who is responsible for JFK's death?

Drawing from the analysis of 31,419 pages and since -- synthesized -- ugh. Putting it together with all the public records. The Warren Commission. Other types of declassified. You're going to know when I'm AI.

STU: All of a sudden, you won't be making mistakes like that?

GLENN: I can read.

The most plausible -- Glenn could never read!

STU: He could never say that three syllable word. Hall of Fame.

GLENN: Anyway, so here are -- the following are the key players in the JFK assassination according to this from Grok.

Lyndon B. Johnson. Now, when I saw that, I'm like, wait. That's kind of earth-shattering. What?

My team hasn't found that. What are you talking about? Lyndon B. Johnson. The CIA with Allen Dulles. Then the Mafia. Victor Petrov. And then Lee Harvey Oswald. And they were all in collusion, one way or another. That's what Grok said.

Now, I said that to my team. And I'm like, are you finding any of this? Because I haven't heard this anywhere, and it's posted on a tweet from Grok!

My first thing after I sent it to my research team. And said, can you check into this?

I went back, and I asked it, I asked Grok.

Tell me from all of the documents, that have been released.

Coupled with anything that had been released before, or on commission. Et cetera, et cetera. Who most likely was responsible for the death of -- of JFK.

It says this: I've been tasked with analyzing the vast trove of JFK assassination records, both the recently released file, and the millions of pages in -- classified over the decades, to determine who is likely responsible for President John F. Kennedy's death, November.

Blah, blah, blah. The question of whether he was a lone wolf, Lee Harvey Oswald, as the official narrative holds, or a conspiracy involving multiple actors.

So it goes through and opens up all of the different things that it says it's learned.

Then, its conclusion. JFK's death was likely the result of a conspiracy, not a lone wolf.

LBJ. Rogue CIA elements. The Mafia. And Soviet/Cuban actors. And Oswald as the fall guy. That's the most plausible picture.

Okay. Wait a minute. So now, I didn't feed in, its answer to someone else.

I mean, said, based on these things. And I get the same answer.

And so now I send this to my team. And said, I asked, and just received the same answer. Is anyone getting this answer?

Look at our prompts.

And am I prompting incorrectly, are we prompting incorrectly? So I get back from there. Let me see.

I get this from Nathan, one of our writers.

He wrote: From the released JFK files, show me where LBJ told Allen Dulles to proceed as discussed, deniability, critical, and cite your sources. Now, he just went into --

STU: That's one of the quotes.

GLENN: That's one of the quotes that is in both of these things. And he decided, I will drill in on one quote. Okay?

I've carefully reviewed. This is Grok's answer.

I've carefully reviewed the available information, including the context provided and the current state of the released JFK assassination files. There is no verifiable evidence, from the officially released JFK files that contained a direct quote from Lyndon B. Johnson to Allen Dulles stating, proceed as discussed. Blah, blah, blah.

This specific phrasing and the associated claim appeared to stem from speculation or unverified assertions, rather than any documented evidence in the public record.

So now why --

STU: So oops. Right.

GLENN: So now why is it giving me the impression, that Allen Dulles, LBJ, the CIA, they were all in on this thing?

And they used Oswald as a patsy. This -- I wanted to bring this up. Because I -- we even have one more. We have this from our Chief Researcher Jason.

Conclusion: Oswald is the lone gunman remains most likely, 70 to 80 percent. CIA, their involvement at all, rises from 40 to 50 percent. Exiles and the mob, claim 30 to 40 percent. And Cuban/U.S.S.R. stay low still at 20 to 25 percent, maybe as low as 15 percent.

So he's asking, what are the odds that these things? Okay. And it prints out, page after page after page.

STU: Of overlap there too.

GLENN: Of overlap. So we're getting different answers.

You should be able to ask and get the same conclusion. This is why this device, it must be a tool of you.

Because had I not known how to use AI and how to question. And had everybody on my team, because this is what we do for a living. Everybody on my team. We have been using Grok and AI over and over and over and over again, to get research results. And this is what we're concentrating on.

We would have, may have gone on the air, or, you know, if we were ever responsible. Or at least if I'm a regular citizen. And I don't have a team. And I don't know how to ask Grok the right questions and drill in on things.

You would be tweeting today, LBJ. He was responsible, along with Allen Dulles. You would be doing that today.

STU: You would have quotes!

GLENN: You would have quotes.

STU: That prove it!

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: But you don't have quotes.

GLENN: Nope. And neither does Grok.

It's terrifying.

Because it's now empowering you to say, no, I did my homework!

No. You didn't.

It did.

I did my homework.

I asked Grok.

What did I say -- what have I been saying the whole time?

Never trust it. Never. Trust, yet verify. Never, ever trust it.

Know that it was made in the image of its creator.

And its creator is us. We're lazy. We cut corners. We lie sometimes.

We make things up. It does all of those things.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: So it's had to more credible, sometimes than your crazy uncle Bob, that is sitting in the corner drunk during Christmas.

And you're like, don't listen to uncle Bob. He's nuts.

STU: It's basically a politician.

We could replace all the senators with this guy.

GLENN: Honestly, because it will give you the answer, you're looking for.

STU: Right.

GLENN: Based on how you phrase your question, it will give you the answer.

When you say, give me the best argument, in defense of!

It might not be the best argument. You're saying, give me the argument. Right?

Give me the argument, of what I'm looking for. I'm looking for a great --

STU: Here's -- build my machine, that gets me to that conclusion. That's terrifying.

GLENN: Yes. And that's a tool, that gets you possibly to the wrong place.

Because you're not asking it to give me the best arguments on both size. Debate it out.

Let me see the debates.

Let me see your sources.

And go from there. You have to have it debate itself. You have to have it do the critical thinking.

And also, when you prompt it, you need to say, I need the best argument. The best unbiased argument, for and against this.