RADIOMay 04, 2022

WHAT'S NEXT: Could packing the Supreme Court END America?

Thanks to the recent leak of a drafted Roe v Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will ‘never be the same,’ Kelly Shackelford tells Glenn. ‘I just think it’s going to damage the court permanently,’ the President & CEO of First Liberty Institute explains. ‘We’ve crossed that Rubicon now.’ So, with a ‘damaged’ court, what comes next? Well the left already is pushing to pack the Supreme Court — something Shackelford says could be the END of America as we know it: ‘When [court packing] happens, that first time, you’re done. You’re tyranny.’

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Mr. Kelly Shackelford from First Liberty. How are you, sir?

KELLY: Great, Glenn. It's great to be you with you.

GLENN: First of all, is it illegal to leak this document?

KELLY: I'm not aware of any criminal violation.

GLENN: Okay.

KELLY: Obviously, it's -- it's a really, it's an attack upon the institution of the court. And I don't know if people understand. I mean, the court will never be the same.

I don't know what they're going to have to do now, but the ability of all the justices to have -- these are some of the brightest young attorneys in the country. They bring in new ones.

And the ability just with your own clerks. The opinions you're working on.

I mean, I just think it's going to damage the court permanently. And there's a reason why this has been never happened.

And it's -- we've crossed that Rubicon now. And the court will never be the same.

GLENN: I'm not sure it will change forever, if they put the hammer down on anything that was involved. Wouldn't that send a strong enough message to bring it back?

KELLY: I hope. I mean, number one, are they going to figure out, who it is? I think it's highly likely to be one of the 12 clerks, or the three liberal justices.

I mean, you know, what if, God forbid, it ended up being involved with the justice.

I mean, to me, I think that's impeachable. I just think that people don't understand the -- this is why sort of shooting a rocket, at the Supreme Court, is -- it is something that could -- that we might not return from, as far as the court being able to be what it is.

Which is the ability for justices. I don't know if people know this, Glenn. But what happens is, there's a majority a a dissent. And they voted, just a few days after the argument. They vote. And they start to write on the opinion. The majority writes there. And they share votes.

And people end up being convinced. This is the marketplace of ideas in a different way. It's very important. They want to know what the law is. What does the law really say?

Oh, my gosh. I didn't really think of that. And people switch.

And there's lots to that, that's happened. Where people go to a concurrence, or a consent, or a consent to the majority. And if you can't share the opinions and have that discussion, without people, you know, taking what's being written and taking it out in public, to try to use it as a political tool. I mean, you just destroyed the internal deliberation, going on, and the exchange of ideas.

It's a really horrible thing, what this person did.

GLENN: What about -- what about the idea that it might have been a conservative clerical, that thought maybe they're going to switch to the other side. This will lock them into position.

KELLY: It doesn't make sense on a lot of levels. I understand people think it's really, really cute. Because it locks them in.

Number one, the whole point is that conservatives don't do that. Conservative justices actually restrain themselves -- and no matter what I believe, I'm going to follow what works. What is the original meaning?

The whole philosophy of those people, is not just warp the court into what they want it to be. That's a liberal approach.

GLENN: Right. And that is clear in this -- in this ruling. I mean, that is mentioned several times. That we're not a political body. We can't acquiesce. We have no idea what this is going to do with the American people. But we can't care about that. We have to do what our job is.

And that is to interpret the law against the Constitution.

VOICE: And here's the thing about that, Glenn. Nobody talks about that.

This is a deal. Talk about populism. This is a massive return of power to the people. And away from a few oligarchs who control everything. In a darkroom in the Supreme Court. They weren't supposed to.

It's not the Constitution.

So this is a huge return of power, to people, at the United States. To make their decision, to decide what they think is right or wrong. And not have just a handful of people, tell them what morality is. So it's not talked about that way. But it really should be. This is what the Founders meant.

GLENN: It really is incredible. Because I saw signs last night. Power belongs to the people. And they were protesting. No. That's -- that's what this document says! Now, can -- can this go to -- we know it can now go back to states, as it should be. And they can vote and do whatever they want.

Does this -- can this also just go back to Congress, and have a federal law?

KELLY: They can. They can, if they can pass it. Because, again, the Constitution doesn't speak to it, and therefore it's up to the people. So they can pass a law. But they would -- they would have to do one of two things. They would have to -- you know, in the Senate, get 60 votes. In order to -- it's called filibuster. It's really cloture. They can either get 60 votes. Which they will not be able to do. Or they can destroy the filibuster. And that will be a permanent damaging of the Senate. I mean, the last time they didn't have a filibuster was before Thomas Edison. You know, invented the lightbulb.

So we're talking about. This would be -- change the Senate forever.

Because the reason the Senate is considered probably the most well-known deliberative body in the world. Is because you can't just pass it with raw political power. You have to get some consensus of the other side.

It takes that 60 votes. And it slows things down.

So you only have one party taking over, flipping the country, one major direction to the other. The Senate kind of stops that and makes there be some consensus.

If you take -- if you destroy the filibuster, we're going to see court packing. We're going to see Puerto Rico becoming a state. DC. I mean, we're not going to recognize our country.

I think I've mentioned this before, with your audience, even, Glenn. But if people don't understand -- once you do court packing once, your country is over.

So this is the kind of stuff that would happen, if they do get rid of the filibuster, as Bernie Sanders and others are advocating today. Because they know they'll have to do that, if they're going to push through a new law. A new Roe v. Wade by federal mandate.

GLENN: And is court packing just one justice? Or does there have to be several? I don't know who would go five to five.

KELLY: It's four. They already filed a bill to add four justices to the Supreme Court.

So it would add four. Which would then make the liberals have the majority. And they would just start doing whatever -- basically, like a super legislature. But the problem is within once you do it, the court is over. It's just a subsidiary of the majority party in power. And there's no rule of law anymore. And you don't have any rights anymore. You have whatever right the majority party wishes for you to keep, and that's why --

GLENN: And you never really go back.

KELLY: You don't. You look at -- and people wonder what happened to Venezuela. That's what happened.

Argentina. We can go through lots of countries. People don't understand. But when it happens, that first time, you're done. You're tyranny.

And really, a dictatorship is where you go. So it's something they tried in 1936, '37. FDR did. Because he did not like the fact that they were not getting his new deal through. But even his own party turned against him, before it was over.

And said, this is tyranny. We're not going to do this in this country, and it failed.

But it's very dangerous. And it's something they can only do. If they destroyed the filibuster, which would be what they had to do to pass a Roe v. Wade in federal statute.

GLENN: So that is the thing that, you know -- you know, I'm looking at here.

I'm not sure they released this to do anything, but to pour fuel on the fire, right now.

Why wait until summer? Power fuel on the fire right now. To get court packing done. And the end of a filibuster. I think it has more to do with that, than the judgment from the court. Would you agree?

I think it's both. Probably. They're hoping that they can intimidate one of the justices. This is the beginning of what I've been predicting for months. I think we were just together recently.

And I said, this is coming in June. When these decisions start coming down.

And I think they're going to go for court packing in a frenzy. I think this is going to be their new election approach. Because they obviously are not working well under the current polling, and et cetera.

And I think this is going to be their attempt. And we're seeing just a sort of release of that. In addition to, I hope they can intimidate one of the five justices, that supposedly are on this opinion.

It only says Alito, but, again, part of the leak was that four other justices, not the chief. But four of the other with them. So my hope, is that they can pick off a Kavanaugh, or a Barrett, who will lose their nerve. I don't think that will happen. I think this would entrench them even more. It will just destroy. Everybody would know that they changed their -- their principled opinion, because of pressure.

So I don't think that's going to happen. So I agree with you. Long-term, this is their strategy, and this is what they're going to do.

GLENN: Kelly, can you hang on for just a second?

I want to talk to you about the other cases that are coming up in June, and the impact that they will have.

We will do that in 60 seconds.

GLENN: Kelly Shackelford is on the board of trustees of the United States Supreme Court historical society.

He's earned his law degree from Baylor University.

And he's also the president and CEO of First Liberty Institute.

If you are thinking about donating money to any cause, I can highly recommend First Liberty Institute. They can use your money, and they are winning and actually leaving permanent marks.

It's FirstLiberty.org. So, Kelly, we have been in front of the Supreme Court. We were talking. And you said to me, we're probably more free. By the end of the summer, we will be more free, religiously speaking, than we have been in our lifetime.

You also said, because of Roe vs. Wade, and the other opinions that you think are coming down the pike, that the left is going to lose their mind. What are the other cases?

Well, obviously you've got Dobbs. Which is the Roe v. wade, which we're now seeing the precursors too. And, by the way, the way this works, is the court issues all of its opinions by June, because the session will end. And they will mostly leave the country and speak and teach and stuff. Other places. So the opinions are out by the end of June. You would expect Dobbs to be issued that last week, probably.

GLENN: Hang on. Let me ask you a question. Why don't they just finish it now, and make it official?

KELLY: They might. They might. I don't know how far along they are. Because what we saw was an early draft. But if I'm the chief, I think I might move it along now. And say, we'll get this out quickly. So all this nonsense will stop. But it normally will be late. But in addition to Dobbs. You've got a Second Amendment case, which will be -- I think in favor of the Second Amendment. And against the New York restrictions. On guns.

GLENN: Which will do -- which will do what?

KELLY: It will just bolster the Second Amendment, and say that these types of restrictions are unconstitutional. Because there is a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And this violates that fundamental right. I think you're going to get that kind of -- I think we're going to -- we argue it's a major school choice decision in September. And, you know, it's expected, the way the argument thing. That we're going to win that case.

GLENN: Which would mean, what?

KELLY: Which means any time, there's any school choice program, anywhere in the country, you cannot exclude religious schools or religious choices from the parents.

And that will make clear, that school choice has to be fair. And that everywhere it's going on. And there's a lot of programs out there. The exclusion of the religious schools is over. And so at a -- that will cause a lot of religious schools to come into being, because now there will be resources, that the parents have to choose what they think is best for their kids.

So that will be a big decision. Because the Kennedy case, which we just argued a week ago, Monday. That's a huge case. And it looks like, it's going to be even bigger than expected. Depending upon how they write the opinion.

Again, this is a coach. She was fired for going to a knee after the game, to say a 20-second prayer, thanking God for the privilege to coach the young men, he coached. It's the first time the court has ever had a case, on the free exercise. Or religious freedom rights, of a teacher. A coach. Anyone. So there's never been a decision on this. So it will affect a lot of people that way. But what people didn't expect. During the oral argument within the court the bottom into a discussion about possibly ending the Lemon case. Which has been around for 50 years. And if people wonder why our whole lives, we've seen attacks on nativity scenes, and menorahs, and veterans memorials with religious symbols. And Ten Commandments monuments, and all that.

It's not because the Founders said anything about that. It's because of this really bad case 50 years ago. And it's been the weapon of choice. For secularists now. For 50 years. To wipe our society clean of religion. And it's pretty clear that maybe a majority of the justices are about to say, that's over. And that's a sea change. If that happens as well.

GLENN: Jeez.

KELLY: So those are just a handful. And there's some others as well.

Finance. There's the border case that was argued this last week. So all this stuff is coming down, at the end of June. And my guess is, the Marxist left is not going to like these things.

GLENN: It is amazing to me, as -- as we are traveling down this road, where the country seems -- the government seems to be going in entirely the wrong direction.

And you're kind of losing hope.

That the Supreme Court now rides in, and is doing remarkable things, that, quite honestly, I think would find favor in the eyes of good. It's -- I mean, hopefully it buys us some time.

KELLY: Yeah. And, you know, what it's doing -- is these justices aren't themselves. Politicians. They don't go one way or another. But they're going back to the original meaning of the texts of the Constitution. Which takes us to our founding.

GLENN: Yeah.

Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of First Liberty Institute. You can find it and donate at FirstLiberty.org.

I highly recommend that. That's the thing about constitutional judges, it doesn't always cut your way. Because it's all about freedom, and rule of law.

Is Silicon Valley creating our cyborg replacements?!

Artificial Super Intelligence cannot be controlled, MIT physics professor Max Tegmark warns. It WILL take power if we create it. And meanwhile, Silicon Valley elites like Sam Altman are planning to merge man with machine - without consulting us first. Max joins Glenn Beck to discuss his efforts to end this insanity and convince the US and China to stop their race to ASI before it’s too late. And it revolves around a petition signed by a widely diverse group of people, from Glenn Beck to Yuval Noah Harari…

Sign the petition at https://superintelligence-statement.org/

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Max Tegmark. It is an honor to have you on. I've been a fan of yours for a very long time.

MAX: It's an honor for me to be here.

GLENN: So -- so, Max, I'm seeing the statement that you have put out. And let's just -- can we go through it.

Here it is. We called for the prohibition on the development of super intelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus, that -- that it would be done safely and controllably, and a strong public buy-in, that's the whole statement. Right?

MAX: That is.

GLENN: And what do you hope. Because I've seen who you have studying. Here's the first five signatories. You ready? Steve Wozniak. Sir Richard Branson. Steve Bannon. Glenn Beck. Susan Rice. Prince Harry. Yuval Harari, which is mind-boggling to me. You have all of these leaders from all walks of life. You have faith leaders.

And it runs the spectrum.

What is it that we all have in common here?

MAX: Yeah. And you also have the most cited scientist in the world, Yoshua Bengio and Stephen Hanson. They are like my Einstein and Oppenheimer of today, who developed much of this technology and pioneering work. Saying their own work. What these all have in common is hilarious to see people express confusion.

This is a bewilderingly diverse group of people. Why don't they agree on anything?

It's because they aren't human. This is a question about, do we want the future where machines work where you live?

Or a future, which is all about the machines.

GLENN: So can you stop super intelligence?

I mean, we've had a conversation on this. You know, Sam Altman believes he's creating God.

And that's a terrifying. And there's a lot of people in Silicon Valley, that want to meet God. Of their creation. How do you stop this? China is rushing towards it.

We're rushing towards it. How do you stop it?

MAX: Well, let's start by talking just a little bit more what Sam Altman and people -- what folks want. And that I -- you know, how we can solve it. It's very doable. You know, I was just listening this morning, at some of the early writing of Sam Altman before his media team started telling him to tone down the rhetoric a little bit. This is a direct quote from a blog he wrote, called The Merge. When he said, we will be the first species ever to design our own descendents. My guess is that we can already see the biological boot loader for digital intelligence, and then save into an evolutionary tree branch. How does that sound to you? For the future for our children. Or we can figure out what a successful merge looks like.

But he's arguing in his speech, that we should merge with machines. And, you know, the average person listening to us right now on this program. Who asked them if they want to merge with machines?

GLENN: Nobody.

MAX: Or if they want to merge with machines. I was just playing with my 2-year-old son Leo this morning. I find that basically from 1776 -- someone will force my son to merge with machines, whether that's him or his parents or anyone really having a say on this. It's completely nuts.

There are a bunch of dudes in San Francisco, who had too much Red Bull to drink, should make these decisions for the rest of us.

GLENN: For all of humanity.

MAX: Yes. Indeed.

GLENN: The -- the race though is on. So how do you stop it?

MAX: Well, first of all, the lobbyists from these companies, keeps trying to convince us that it's unstoppable. That's the number one thing in the book, right? If a big, powerful country invades another country, the first thing they are going to try to persuade, don't bother fighting. It's pointless. Right?

So we have to make these decisions, when the same people say, it's stun stoppable. Are actually -- many are working for the companies.

Second, let's just look at the logic, you know. The argument is, you can never stop a new technology that can give a lot of money and power.

Because that's historically false. You know, I could make so much money human cloning. If I could clone you, Glenn, and a bunch of other talented people.

And mess with your DNA. And tweak you. And sell your services. You know, we didn't feel that as a society. There was a big discussion about this in the '70s. And the consensus around the world was, we could lose control of our species, if we start messing with ourselves in that way. And it became so stigmatized. So it didn't happen.

GLENN: There is -- there is a guy -- wasn't there a guy who did it know. Wasn't there somebody in China?

MAX: There was a guy. Yes, actually. This is such a great thing that you bring up. People often say, well, if don't do it, China is going to do it. well, there was a dude in China who did it. And guess what the Chinese government did with him? They sent him to jail.

Because they thought human cloning was a really bad idea. And the Chinese government. The Chinese communist party, really liked control. So the idea that they're going to let some -- some oddball in China do something. To sort of lose control of the human species, doesn't land well there. Right?

So there is where the optimism comes. Your first question, how can we stop it?

Of course, the predominance between the US and China. But there actually are two races going on here. There's the dominant race. Economic dominance. Military dominance. Technological. Cultural dominance. And the way it narrates, is we're building tools that are controllable.

Where there's a second race, who can be the first to build super intelligence the way we lose control over. And it wipes out humanity, maybe.

That's a suicide race. The way the US or China will compete for -- for predominance. Possibly doing something that will take away the power from both countries. I think of it as really analogous to something that has already happened already. The Cold War of the Soviet Union.

There was the race for dominance. Economic military might. We Americans won that one.

And then there was the race to see who can put the most nuclear creators in the other country?

And both the Americans and the Soviets openly decided to not nuke each other. And not engage with that suicide race.

Why? Was it because Reagan is on the stage? And looked each other in the eye. And hugged each other. And promised to not nuke each other.

No. There was, in fact, a trust. But it also wasn't necessary. Because we knew. The Soviets knew that it was suicide.

We knew that they knew, and vice-versa.

And that's all it took to avoid the suicide race.

GLENN: And so the suicide, you're talking with ASI is if China gets it, China would know, we'll lose control over it.

They're control freaks. And we'll lose control of our own country. We won't be in control. ASI will be running everything. Right?

MAX: Yes! Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

GLENN: So how do you -- how do you deal then with people like Sam Altman?

I mean, I would imagine. I mean, because there will be people who have labs, and -- and compute time.

To be able to pursue this.

Can you -- can I catch those people before they go down that road? Is that even possible?

MAX: It certainly is possible.

You know, the question -- in the interest of these companies to make us think it's impossible, right?

So we shouldn't trust. But it's very possible.

Look, we do this with every other industry. Let's look at Biotech, for example. The industry that is now not doing human cloning, right? But they're -- they're doing fine, making a ton of money on other investments. Right?

And once upon a time, there were no regulations on biotechs. They could sell any medicine they wanted. In the supermarkets.

And the -- sometimes it's called tragedy. Sometimes it's called tragedy in China. Sometimes it's called a tragedy here. In the US, it was a town called Solidify (phonetic). You probably remember. Right?

It caused over 100,000 American babies to be born without arms or legs. And that triggered so much anger, that resulted in the political will to have biotech create safety standards. And now, it actually has a ban on selling unapproved medicine in the US. We can argue about how to make that system less efficient, more efficient.

GLENN: Right.

MAX: Stuff like that. But I don't know any scientist or people in biotech who wanted to abolish the FDA and legalize it. Right?

GLENN: Right.

MAX: And we have done the same thing with every other industry. Even if you -- if you visit one of these tech companies, and I go for lunch across the street. That restaurant, before they can sell their first sandwich, has to have a health inspector pitch in and show that they some basic safety standards, right?

Saying that AI companies should be the only companies in America, that don't have to meet any safety standards. It's really just asking for corporate welfare for AI companies.

GLENN: Okay. Okay. Hang on just a second. I want to take a one minute break. I want you to read this statement. They're asking for signatures. I have signed on to it.

There are plenty of people who I disagree on almost everything, that have signed on to it. There are plenty of people that are my friends, that have signed on to it. Really, really brilliant people. Faith leaders, et cetera, et cetera. We -- I think the reason why it's so diverse is because this -- this is it. This is the end of humanity, if we lose control of our technology.

It will become a master and not a tool. And I want you to go to futureoflife.org. Futureoflife.org.

Look for the super intelligence statement. It was just released a couple of hours ago. Superintelligencestatement.org.

You can go there and find it. Or at futureoflife.org. And sign it. And I want to ask -- I want to ask Max, what your signature means. And what -- what -- what is this going to be used for?

We'll that do in 60 seconds. First, there was a time when choosing a cell phone carrier wasn't just about coverage and price. It's about something much, much bigger now. Because every company you support, every monthly bill you pay. Every statement, you know, is something. A statement about what you value. The big cell phone companies who decided your money should help fund causes, that undermine many of our values. And Patriot Mobile is the only Christian conservative wireless provider. And they are putting principle back in a business, that I long time ago, lost its way.

Same reliable coverage. Same reliable network.

But unlike the others, they donate a portion of every dollar to organizations that are fighting for your religious freedom.

Your First Amendment right.

Your sanctity of life. And you deserve to know that the money you spend every month, isn't being used against you.

Patriot Mobile. If you sign up, you are getting excellent service. Fair pricing. And something far more powerful.

The ability to stand up for what you believe in.

Take a stand today. Go to PatriotMobile.com/Beck. Or go to 972PATRIOT. It's promo code Beck.

Get a free month of service. PatriotMobile.com/Beck. Or call 972PATRIOT.

Make the switch today. Ten seconds. Back to Max Tegmark.
(music)
So what is your goal with this statement, Max?

MAX: Yeah. For your listeners there. Future hyphenated statement. When you go and add your support, if you like.

The goal of this statement is to make publicly known, that if you are concerned about this, you are not crazy. You're not alone.

You have an incredible amount of support from leaders across the political spectrum here.

Up until now, a lot of people who have this horrible feeling, right? Are afraid of speaking up.

They -- a lot of people have told me this. Because they don't want to sound like Luddites. Fearmongers.

You know, now is the time to -- to speak up and say what you think.

Because this is -- this is -- this is, Glenn. You're so right.

You know, the reason we're seeing such remarkably broad people agreeing on this.

That's also what happened if we actually got invaded from aliens in space, just like you said from the beginning.

If some weird spaceship started showing up and started shooting at us.

Everybody --

GLENN: Right. Right.

MAX: And that's what happens now. That's fundamentally also why we can stop this. Almost nobody wants this.

We also just released a poll showing that less than 5 percent of Americans actually want a race -- a race to super intelligence.

That's less than one in 20 Americans. Right?

And yet, we're having this stuff shoved down our throat.

GLENN: Agreed.

Max, I can't thank you enough for this.

And all that you're doing.

We need to have more conversations, about artificial intelligence. Artificial super intelligence. General intelligence. The world is going to change. And millions of jobs are either going to change or be lost, and it depends on how we apply AI. It's not something to fear if you realize it is a tool and you are the master.

But too many people are just going to use this. Their brain is going to go soft. And they will let it take control of their lives.

And make their decisions. Et cetera. And then if it becomes general intelligence or super intelligence, you're a slave to it.

And it -- it has to stop. It has to stop.

So if you would like to sign this, I have signed it.

And I urge you to sign this.

It's a very simple statement. We call for a prohibition on the development of super intelligence. Not lifted before there's a broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably. And a strong public buy-in. That's all you're signing. And you can go to super intelligence-statement.org. I -- I found it at FutureofLife.org. And you can -- you'll find it there as well. You scroll down the page. But superintelligence-statement.org.

I urge you to sign it and to pass it on to somebody else. This is a conversation we must have.

MIT physics professor and author of Life 3.0, Max Tegmark. Great talking to you, Max.

FEMA blacklisted CONSERVATIVES? Biden's secret policy EXPOSED

The Left claims that President Trump is weaponizing the federal government following the indictments of former FBI Director James Comey and former Trump national security adviser John Bolton. Ignoring the fact that Biden's FBI tried to jail Trump before the 2024 election, damning evidence has come out that under the Biden administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency secretly blacklisted conservatives and lowered their priority when it came to FEMA assistance. Where is the outrage?!

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So they say that Donald Trump has weaponized the government. Okay. Then he turned the DOJ loose on his enemies. He's targeted John Bolton. And obsessed with James Comey. They've said it a million times over and over again.

Without ever asking, you know, who actually held the trigger here?

Okay. But for a moment. Just for the case of this argument, let's just say all of that was true. Let's say Trump had used the power of the state to punish those two people who had crossed him. Okay?

People like Bolton and Comey. Just say, for the sake of argument, that's all true!

These are men who said in the highest rooms of power, they have lawyers. They have money. They have microphones.

If that were true, it would be ugly. It would be dangerous.

And it would be limited!

Because what we just learned from the Department of Homeland Security. Is something far, far worse. This time, the target is not a political rival. It's not a Washington insider. It was you!

There's new news that's coming out today. According to the DHS privacy office report, which was launched after a bunch of whistle-blowers came forward. That now says that FEMA did not mishandle just a few cases.

They kept notes. They were making a list.

They tracked American -- Americans, their political and religious beliefs, during disasters. Not in theory, in black and white.

Let me give you some of the quotes: Angry political rant. Sign in yard states I'm a bitter gun owner, clinging to go my religion. Homeowner had a sign stating, "This is Trump country."

They -- they -- these are not comments, you know, about storm patterns. These are comments about people!

And when these people were flooded, they were homeless, they were desperate, and asked for help from the same government that preaches compassion and equity, they got something entirely different! They got silence. Delay. And sometimes, nothing at all!

The DHS report now confirms, quote, FEMA violated the privacy act of 1974, by collecting and storing data, tied to protected speech.

They were checking bumper stickers and writing you down in a book!

They logged gun signage. Seventy-two times. Trump, 15 times. Firearms, five times. Biden, twice.

The FEMA workers then. And we told you all this. But it was a conspiracy theory. Now it has been proven.

FEMA workers skipped homes, if you had a MAGA flag. Or a yard sign. And then they left notes. There was a political fire. There was a political flier, I'm quoting, so I didn't leave a FEMA brochure.

Quote, we don't recommend anyone visit this location, end quote.

That's not a clerical error here. That's a blacklist!

This is the same agency that airlifts people off of rooftops after hurricanes. That distributes food and shelter.

When nothing else works, and they were told to avoid Americans because who they voted for.

Not terrorists. Not not criminals. Citizens. You!

I will tell you, I have been in disaster after disaster. Much of it not of my own creating.

But natural disaster all over the world!

I've shown up at the hurricanes and the floods and the tornadoes. With help!

And not once did it even occur to me, to ask you, what's your political affiliation?

Not once did it even occur to any of us to say, where do you stand on the Second Amendment?

Who did you vote for?

What do you believe?

What church do you go to?

Never. Do you believe in God?

Never! That is absolutely 100 percent un-American. Un-American.

I read this report, the floods in Florida, and the tornadoes in Tennessee, and the hurricanes in South Carolina. Where people waited for days for aid, that never came!

And when it did come, because of pressure from people like us, survivors. Americans who lost everything received a 700-dollar check.

$700. Meanwhile, billions are being funneled to illegal immigrants.

To foreign wars. To bureaucracies studying climate equity. And now we know why.

Because they were busy making notes about bumper stickers.

I read this, this morning, and I saw it firsthand. But I couldn't prove it. But I saw it firsthand. And I reported on it, at the time.

But they could say, it was an isolated incident. And I could prove otherwise.

We can now. The report is now out.

This is as un-American as our withdrawal in Afghanistan. Why was that so offensive?

Because we -- we left in, A, humiliation.

That's the least of my concerns. We left in humiliation. We betrayed all of our allies. And we left people behind.

We never leave people behind. Never!
That's one of our highest rules! You don't leave people behind!

One of the biggest things about Americans, that we are generous. We are good! We're charitable. We help everybody. We are the world's lifeboat.

And now we find out we had a president, and an administration, that was making a political list. A blacklist. Where they would not give aid to Americans who are suffering!

You're taking my tax dollars, and if I happen to be the one that needs aid, I don't get coverage?

Because of who I voted for?

It's the most offensive thing I've heard of our country ever doing on aid. Ever! Can you -- can you remember anything like this, ever? I mean, they say, "Democracy dies in darkness."

Yeah. Well, why don't I shine a light on some of these things? It doesn't die in darkness, it apparently is dying in databases. The FEMA database quietly flagged citizens as politically undesirable.

Let me ask you this: What would the media have said or done if Donald Trump would had ignored those who lost their homes in California after the ravaging fire?

If he didn't just show up, it would be bad enough. Right?

But he showed up. He brought his cabinet with him! He brought FEMA. He brought relief. He tried to cut all of the red tape in California. Couldn't get that done. But he was there. Can you imagine if he just hadn't have showed up. Which Biden never did. If he hadn't have shown up. Worse yet, can you imagine what would be said, if you had found out, that Donald Trump -- his FEMA was making a list, and saying, they voted for Gavin Newsom. They voted for Joe Biden. No help for them on their house!

Can you imagine the outrage? I would be outraged. I am just as outraged that it happened under the last administration.

Why? Why am I outraged?

Because it cannot happen. It cannot happen under any administration!

You allow this to happen, and stand, good luck, America, on what you have left! Will anything be done? Will anyone go to jail?

Will the left be outraged by this?

You want to talk about no kings? What is a king?

Other than, let that serf die. We don't care about those guys. They aren't for the king!

You know, Mercury One has already rebuilt homes. We are -- we are moving people back into their homes every single day. I know it. Because I watch Mercury One do it. But not in California. We tried in California. Gavin Newsom, the Democrats, they won't help those people. They won't allow any help for those people. Their own voters they don't care about. If you get in the way of this leftist administration, these leftists, it doesn't matter. Ends justify the means. Let them die.

You know, they keep warning you about authoritarianism, but here it is. Cloaked in compassion. Branded with a FEMA logo. This wasn't rogue. Not a rogue agent.

This was not a one-off scandal. This was a database.

The DHS investigation says, political bias was systematic, dating back to at least September 2021.

That means, that while the administration accused conservatives of conspiracy theories, it was literally compiling lists.

And the media went right along with it. And will the media ever tell you this story?

When what was her name, the FEMA administrator Criswell testified before Congress, in 2021, she said, "This was an isolated case."

Well, unfortunately, your files tell a different story. It's not isolated. It was national. And it was deliberate.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said, quote, for years, FEMA employees under the Biden administration intentionally delayed much needed aid to Americans suffering from natural disasters on purely political grounds.

This is not your political enemy! This is your neighbor! That's not mismanagement. That's moral rot!

It's not just another Washington scandal. This is a betrayal of the covenant between citizen and state!

But they're not going to tell you about that. The media won't talk to you about that.

The Democrats won't do a damn thing about it.

None that side will condemn this. You, but they'll talk to you today, about how trump is destroying the White House. Oh, my gosh.

He's destroying the White House.

And he's spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a ballroom of his own money.

And other people who are donating!

And, you know what, they're not donating in secret. It's all listed right there.

They don't go through Arabella advisers or the Tides Foundation.

They give it straight, and it's reported straight. So you know who built that building!

My gosh.

They'll report on the White House today. But they won't report on your house. You know, when FEMA didn't show up because you were on their list. The moment this government decides that you are less worthy of rescue because of how you vote, your faith, your flag, a bumper sticker.

The -- the -- you don't need darkness for democracy dying. The republic is dead!

There is no republic.

A republic represents all voters! It ceases to exist. You do have a king.

You know, weaponizing law enforcement against political opponents is really bad! But weaponizing disaster relief against ordinary citizens, people standing on their roof, waiting for a helicopter that never comes, is something absolutely pitch black dark!

If your politics can determine whether you live or die, we cease to be a republic. We cease -- we cease to deserve the rights God gave us.

WARNING: Will the "AI Bubble" CRASH the Stock Market?

The AI revolution promises to change everything, but what if it’s leading us straight into another financial collapse? Glenn Beck and economist Peter Atwater break down the eerie parallels between today’s AI boom and the 2008 housing crash, revealing how speculative hype, overvalued tech giants, and circular corporate investments are inflating a dangerous bubble. Could this “AI gold rush” be the next market disaster waiting to happen?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Is it not a bubble?

I don't know. Are we close to AGI or not close to AGI.

Again, I don't know.

Is it to change things? Yes. I saw a story in our show prep today. I'm not going to get a chance to get it. It's about other countries that are building these giant server farms. Their electricity and their water is being shut off because all of it being diverted to these big server farms. And if we're not careful, that's exactly what's going to happen to us.

Peter Atwater is a guy that Stu and I have been talking about for a while because he's comparing this AI bubble. He's like, "Look, I wanted to show you a chart. I'm not smart enough to figure out the chart. But let me show you a chart, and I want to show you a chart that I did in, like, 2007 or 2008 with the housing bubble! Wow, they kind of look exactly the same. And it's a little frightening."

Peter is with us now. Peter Atwater from the College of William & Mary. He's an adjunct lecturer there. He's the guy who coined the term K-shaped recovery.

Welcome to the program, how are you, sir?

PETER: I'm great, Glenn. Thanks very much for having me.

GLENN: You bet. Okay. So can you explain the housing -- or, not the housing bubble.

The AI bubble. Do you believe it is? And if so, why? And what does that mean?

PETER: I do believe it is.

And I study confidence and its impact on what we do.

And so what I see in the AI bubble is a lot of similarities to what we saw during the housing bubble. Where everybody wants to be involved.

There's a social frenzy to it. There's a want to, you know, make a lot of money, to see the opportunity in it.

There's a lot of speculation.

And what matters so much, to me as a researcher, is that this network that existed in the -- in the housing bubble. Where mortgages were sliced and diced.

And you had these conveyor belts that moved everything from, you know, mom and pop's house to folks all over the world.

GLENN: Right.

PETER: Now, it's within the AI system. Where you have enormous amounts of capital moving, but also equipment.

So it looks a lot like the Just In Time Network that we saw stumble during COVID.

GLENN: Okay. That doesn't make me happy. But there's a difference between the housing bubble, where it was all being inflated and resold and repackaged. And this, which does seem to be a game-changer on productivity. Where housing was not.

This seems to be like it could be a real game changer for economies. Agree or disagree?

PETER: Oh. There's no question, it will be a game changer. But we can think about it the same way we said dot-com was going to be a game changer. Like railroads. And all of these other things that we have in terms of speculative mania.

There's real productivity. Real improvement that comes from it. But what happens is that investors anticipate it happening far sooner, in far larger scale.

And much more profitably than it ever does.

GLENN: So what are you predicting? How is this going to -- how is this going to happen?

What's a bad case scenario, not necessarily worst?

I don't know if I can handle worst. Bad case scenario, and realistic scenarios.

PETER: Yeah. So to me, the realistic scenario is that valuations come down dramatically. At the same time, the build-out continues at a much lower pace.

And eventually, maybe a decade from now, it all settles out.

But in the meantime, there's a lot of financial pain that's going to go along with it. Particularly because today, more than 40 percent of an S&P 500 ties to AI.

GLENN: Like seven companies. Right?

PETER: Seven companies, and -- and the ones that are closest to them. So that, you know, retirees, pension plans, you know, folks that invest in index funds, have a super sized allocation to AI whether they realize it or not.

GLENN: Can you give me an example of this happening in history, that's not housing, but more industry?

PETER: Sure. You can go back to radio. In the -- in the 20s. I mean, RCA was a mammoth weight in the markets. Because people were incredibly excited about it.

You saw it even -- go back even further to canals. We -- we love new technology. Particularly where we can identify the efficiencies that we see coming from it.

STU: One of the things that's really interesting about the trends you've highlighted, Peter, is this sort of circuitous relationship with these companies. It's too complicated to go through all of it.

Just to give you one quick relationship here. And tell me if I'm understanding this right.

OpenAI, of course, buys a bunch of chips from NVIDIA. They're spending a ton of money with NVIDIA. NVIDIA is investing $100 million into OpenAI. OpenAI is -- has a 300 billion-dollar cloud deal with Oracle.

Oracle is spending tens of billions of dollars in chips with NVIDIA. And then NVIDIA is investing into OpenAI. There's a bunch of these arrows, that are pointing in this circular directions. And it seems like companies are flowing money back and forth to each other, and all these arrangements. And you wonder if there's any disruption here.

Are we looking at some sort of short-term collapse of all this stuff.

PETER: The -- the dog eating its tail phenomenon is extraordinary here. And what's so unusual about this one is, in prior bubbles, the -- the conveyor belts were among smaller participants.

But in this one, we had the largest technology companies in the world, to spinning money around, among themselves.

It looked like one of those Esther drawings, where the waterfall just keeps moving in perpetuity. And the challenge, particularly given that OpenAI is at the center of it, is that this is a company that is barely profitable. That is committing to hundreds of billions of dollars in commitments.

STU: Hmm.

GLENN: So what does it look like if it starts to fall apart? And what are the signs we should be watching for?

PETER: So what we know right now, is that everybody wants to be affiliated with AI in some way.

And so you end up with these late arrivals to the party.

And typically when a bubble bursts, the last guy to the party, is the first to leave. When you think of this in the context of a mortgage bubble.

Where it was the subprime lenders who showed up right at the tail end.

And then collapsed first. So I'm -- I'm watching to see these companies that are barely AI-related, that have tried to position themselves as being AI industry leaders. Who are likely to fail in the not too distant future.

They just need rarefied air to exist.

GLENN: Like what companies?

PETER: I don't have specific names to throw out there.

GLENN: Sure. Okay.

PETER: But they're typically smaller highly leveraged offerings. To very, very compelling, but untested technologies.

GLENN: Now, this would be -- I mean, if it collapses, I mean, that would be horrific for our economy.

But also, what -- what happens with the race with China? I mean, China is deeper into this than we are, at like crazy.

How -- how does this affect China, what happens to the race, how does -- I mean, how does this not move forward?

PETER: So I am by no means a China expert, but I would expect that if our confidence in AI begins to fall, confidence in AI more broadly will come under question.

STU: Hmm.

PETER: So they then face questions in terms of policy maker credibility. In terms of, why did you commit so much to this?

No difference than a CEO faces that test, when a bubble bursts.

GLENN: So what does success look like to you?

Because I'm not sure -- I had a really fascinating conversation a couple of weeks ago.

And he's going to come on the show in a couple of weeks with Max Tegmark, who is a brilliant AI ethicist. And we were talking about AI, AGI. And he believes that that may not be happening. And he makes a great case on this.

But is that the goal, or, I mean. Because what -- what is the goal that we're not going to hit, that would fall short?

That would cause this kind of stuff?

PETER: So I think you -- we tend to fall short in terms of immediate usage. So volume short.

But also profitability.

You know, if you go back through dot-com bubble. They all imagined this huge, you know, pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And you're seeing the same wild fascination with the potential profitability for AI.

And, again, that may come, but it's unlikely too come at the speed and magnitude that people now expect. I mean, we're -- we're fans of science.

GLENN: Boy, I mean, in a way, that would be really, really good.

Because that -- what I worry about is AI advancing as quickly as everybody says it is. And then what happens to all the jobs so quickly. I mean, you just can't absorb that kind of an impact. If it happens that fast. So I don't know which is better.

PETER: So typically, we'll see a backlash against new technology. I mean, if you go back to the 1920 bubble burst. And you saw this backlash to, you know, innovate technologies like the vacuum. And the ironing board. And all these things that people said, took jobs away. Well, we'll have that same thing in all likelihood. And this time, too, to a point you made earlier, likely compounded by a greater awareness of the environmental consequences of this, and also, the cost that it creates in the average consumer, in terms of the utility bills.

GLENN: Hmm.

Can you explain one more thing? Because you're the guy who invented the K-shaped recovery. And as Stu and I talked about the K-shaped recovery -- can you explain that? K-shaped recovery.

PETER: Sure. So when COVID hit, I immediately saw that if you were a white-collar worker who could work from home, your confidence improved immediately. Whereas, if you were a, you know, somebody who worked if a warehouse. Or stocked shelves in the supermarket. Or hospital worker.

Your confidence didn't start to improve for a long time.

And from that, what I have seen is that the economy that results from these two different tracks of confidence, are vastly different.

And today, those are the top, whether it's because of the markets, or because of corporate earnings, growth. Those at the top feel invulnerable.

And they're spending like it. They're investing like it. They're living like it. They're living like there's no tomorrow.

Well, on the other hand, those at the bottom today, aren't sure how they will make it through the take. They're delinquent on their car loans. They're now worried about health care costs. And so to me, this K that -- this divide has created two classes of Americans.

You have the increasingly desperate, and those who feel invulnerable.

GLENN: That does not sound stable long-term.

PETER: It doesn't feel stable to me too.

And I worry that those who are in a position to do something about it, we're spending so much of our time in this country, fighting between the left and the right, and we're not seeing that our biggest divide is up and down.

That those at the bottom, there's a bipartisan hopelessness that exists.

GLENN: Hmm.

PETER: That I feel like Washington is not paying enough attention to.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Advice for Men in Their 20s & 30s to Achieve YOUR Life Goals

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Matt & Maxim Smith HERE

Are young men prepared for a future dominated by AI, surveillance, and shifting societal rules? Glenn Beck sits down with Matt and Maxim Smith to explore how young men can reclaim their agency and build real-life skills in an uncertain and ever-changing world.

Order a copy of Matt and Maxim Smith's Book: “The Preparation: How to Become Confident, Competent, and Dangerous” HERE