Best of the Program | Guest: Carol Roth & Justin Haskins | 1/23/25

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, No, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

Now, Charlie's sober.

He's gonna tell you the truth.

How do I present this with any class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

Yeah, aka Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

New York Times worried about all of the right things.

You know, like

what would the impact be if Trump takes out all of the cartels?

That could hurt our economy.

What?

Also, Stargate could end up being a catastrophe or one of the greatest inventions since mankind harnessed energy and electricity.

Which one, if not both?

What does it mean?

Also, the president spoke at the World Economic Forum, and Carol Roth is here to talk about the economy.

All on today's today's podcast.

Let me tell you first about My Patriot Supply.

The sad and ugly truth is that no one, not even President Trump and his incoming administration, can protect you and your family from every possible emergency situation that could arise.

We have to prepare for them the best that we can.

And when a crisis hits, Food is almost always the first casualty.

Everybody needs it, and as soon as things get scary, panic buying sets in and you don't want to be a part of that.

Storing emergency food in your home is the right thing to do.

We still live in crazy times and your family might need it.

Right now, MyPatriot Supply is offering $50 off their four-week emergency food kit.

Go to mypatriotsupply.com right now and grab yours.

Don't put this off.

Now is the time to prepare.

It's mypatriotsupply.com.

Get your four-week food kit right now, mypatriotsupply.com.

You're listening to

the best of of the Glenbeck program.

Welcome to the Glenbeck program.

Well, Trump has decided to release the JFK assassination files immediately.

They're coming out sometime next week.

We'll see what has been held back.

In talking to

Cash Patel, he said that he saw them, and it's not who they're protecting, but what they're protecting.

He wouldn't give us any more details other than that.

He is one of the guys who saw it with President Trump when President Trump decided to hold back one more time.

We'll see if these come out.

I'm still waiting also for an explanation of the drones, but that's kind of fallen off the news.

And, you know, he has been a little busy, a little busy with a couple of other things.

The New York Times, also busy.

I mean, I've heard some crazy things.

Stu, I just want to give you this.

And

tell me

how you get here.

New York Times.

Mexican drug cartels are responsible for the untimely deaths of hundreds of thousands of people over the past two decades.

When factoring in the fentanyl, they smuggle into the United States.

Cartels are also culpable for the deaths of over 200 Americans every day.

They deal with murder and addiction, mass kidnappings, rape, torture, political intimidation, yada yada.

But the New York Times

has a concern about the economic impact of Trump's plan to identify and hold the cartels responsible.

Oh, no.

Now,

I'm trying to think about the positive impact the New York Times might have found with the cartels.

I mean,

job creators.

I guess.

Yeah.

Yes, absolutely.

Yeah.

You got that.

You got they're kind of in the medical business, kind of.

I mean, the medical, okay?

Well, they're kind of pharmaceutical companies.

Okay, sure.

Sure.

I mean, you could treat certain ailments with their products.

They're into the entertainment business?

Yes.

Adult entertainment.

Or child entertainment, you know, for adults.

How you want to be entertained?

Sure.

Sure.

I mean, would we get any good movies or music if there were no drugs in this country?

Probably not.

You know, that's going to be

Hollywood change is in trouble.

Hollywood change, yeah.

Are they trying to say basically

these cartels are used as coyotes, essentially, and the people who are coming in for free cheap labor, free or cheap labor,

won't be coming in anymore?

That hurts our economy.

I mean, again, I don't think that's a good argument, but is that what they're trying to get to?

So what they're saying is that this is going to be hard on the banks.

Going to be hard on the banks.

Why would cartels going away be hard on banks?

Well, because the banks are going to be responsible for knowing if

your client is

part of a drug cartel.

And, you know.

Okay.

So

what additional ⁇ I mean, is this going to cause additional layers of paperwork for everybody, essentially?

I don't know, I guess.

And not just cartels, but like, you know.

Are you a friendly neighborhood drug dealer?

You know,

I think.

I mean, if you're in that business, you probably aren't using a bank.

You know what I mean?

Now, if you're a cartel, you want to use the banks.

But I mean, if you're coming in, you know, every year with, you know, $1.5 billion

or, you know, even have holdings of a trillion dollars,

you know, I might want to ask, how are you doing that?

I'm in the import-export business.

I'd like a little bit more.

I like a little bit more.

You know, you also put down here you're in the entertainment industry and pharmaceuticals, but I haven't seen anything on the shelves from you.

Now, Elizabeth Warren has reliably told me that

criminals only use cryptocurrency.

So maybe that, why would they need the banks?

Why would it affect the banks in any way?

I don't know.

I don't know.

But, you know, I just, you know, as I said yesterday, if I were an entrepreneur and I were in Mexico, I might start coffins.com,

you know, because I think there's going to be a run on coffins.

And, you know, as long as Gavin Newsom isn't there, he's not going to put any, well, there's a coffin shortage.

So, you know, let's not raise the price of coffins.

He's not going to do that.

You can price on demand, I'm guessing, in Mexico.

So when there's a rush for coffins, because, I don't know,

our special forces have killed all of the people in the drug cartels, you can make some money.

What's your impression on what Trump actually does here?

We talked a little bit about this yesterday, but

what's the specific plan?

I know you don't, you know, you're not going to reveal anything, but like what

I

give thoughts and impressions, let's say.

Thoughts and impressions.

When basing this completely on your thoughts and impressions.

Yes, and not anything.

What would Trump what would be the approach here to take out the cartels in Mexico?

He would assign people to make a list of

who those terrorists are.

Will they be checking it twice?

They'll check it twice.

Okay, will they find out who's naughty or nice?

Yeah, that's what they're looking for right now.

And then

they'll give it to the president and they'll say, here's the case against these guys and this cartel

and many other cartels.

And the president will say, what do you recommend?

And they'll say, we go in at night

with our

night vision and we kill them all.

And he says,

okay.

And so then we go in at night and we kill them all.

And in the morning, everybody wakes up surprised because they're dead.

I was going to say, do they call coffins.com?

Okay.

And just leaves

like a

rotating, just a repeating ad on the television for coffins.com.

Are you a member of the cartel?

You might consider becoming a franchisee owner of Goffins.com.

Yeah, I think that's what he's going to do.

He's not going to play around.

You are going to see death and destruction of these cartels.

And, you know, I don't.

I'd be shocked to find out if that was our special forces doing that.

Gosh, darn it.

Yeah.

That would be a shocking.

That would be a shocking thing.

So

it's essentially an undercover plan where you're sending in undercover people.

I'm not sure how he's going to do it.

If it's going to be undercover or if it will be on, you know, it might be like Survivor.

except it's a real kind of situation do you this week on survivor who's going to survive in this cartel

do you have the

uh maybe

uh do you have some sort of arrangement with the mexican government on this like do you say to them look we're coming in whether you like it or not he already did yeah well he said that uh-huh but i mean there's a certain level of of donald trump saying things in a negotiation

you know like yesterday uh yesterday at the WEF, they asked the president of Panama, you know, are you worried about the president just taking the Panama Canal?

And he said, get serious.

Get serious.

Please get serious.

I don't know.

I think Donald Trump might be serious about that one.

Not about Greenland.

He's never said he's going to just go take Greenland or Mexico or

Canada, even though the Canada one would be easy.

He's not doing that, but he is very clear.

I am

going to kill the cartels because they're terrorist operations and they're operating here in the United States and causing a lot of pain and suffering.

And so I'm going to kill them all.

I mean, he's designated them terrorist groups, right?

And we know what has happened with, you know, al-Qaeda or whatever.

When he designated a terrorist group, it gives us

what we consider, and other countries don't consider the legal authority to go in and do these types of things.

Because Mexico no longer has the legal authority to do anything because they're run by the cartels.

So you're going to see a lot of feigned outrage at the beginning until he gets rid of these cartels and then they're going to go,

thank you.

Well, that's what, and that's what I wonder because we've had this relationship with certain other countries where we've gone to them and said, hey, we're doing this, whether you like it or not.

And they,

some of them are angry and outraged, but a lot of them are like, oh, no, you shouldn't.

Okay, just if you need to know where they are, let me know.

Like they want, they would love to get rid of this problem.

I think, and it's

depending on who you're talking about in the Mexican government, you'd like to get rid of this because they're challenging your power.

People will be very happy.

If it happens, people in Mexico will be very, very happy.

Right.

And so it's not going to be real unpopular in Mexico with the average everyday people.

But what would be unpopular, right?

Like, let's just say we had a problem with, you know, I don't know, cartels in our country, and the Mexican government was upset with the reverse situation happening.

They're crossing the border.

They're doing all these terrible things.

They sent in their special forces into our country without our approval.

We're a sovereign nation, right?

We would be upset about that.

We would be upset about that.

We're the big boys

on the streets, so we don't have to care necessarily about that.

But

let's actually flip that, okay?

Let's say we were in the situation that Mexico's in, where we try to vote mayors in, we try to vote governors in, and they're just slaughtered in the streets

because they say, I'm taking on the cartels.

And they slaughter everyone in

government that is even whispering about that.

So we've tried to vote them out and we as people know that our government is now in bed with the cartels and it's getting worse and worse and worse.

And Mexico says, you know what?

Enough of these cartels.

They are hurting our people.

And so we're going to come across the border and we're going to take care of them because you won't.

Would you really be upset?

My gosh, they're violating our borders.

I would be all for it quietly.

Right.

That's the part I think is interesting.

I think if I were the president of the United States in this situation and the president of Mexico says, we've got these great special forces, we're coming in and taking them out whether you like it or not, I think that's what I would say.

I would say, well, because I think as a country, you can't just give your nation to the other nation, right?

Like Mexico, like if we have the authority to cross the border and they just are like, yeah, please, anytime you can come over and police in our country, please do so, then they're not a sovereign nation.

You're not policing.

Right.

Well, kind of we are.

I mean, I think it's just a very aggressive form of international terrorist group

that is crossing our borders and crossing.

It's still a form of law enforcement.

I mean, we are.

That is.

But

you would maybe say, well, we would never allow that, but you'd want it to occur.

Yes.

And you'd encourage it, and you'd assist in any way possible.

I'm curious if Mexico would do that.

You would take note of everyone in the federal government and your local government

who opposed it strongly and meant it.

You would be like, okay, they're part of it.

I got part of it.

Right.

And you'd probably be right.

So I hope that's what Mexico does.

I just don't know what this, especially this new, this woman who's trying to get into like little

peeing contests with Donald Trump over these types of things.

I don't think that's a good approach.

No,

this isn't a little peeing thing.

But I'm saying that's what she's doing.

She's publicly coming out.

Oh, yeah.

Well, if you're going to rename it Gulf of America, we're going to look at this region.

This is actually ours or whatever she's trying to put.

We're going to stop sending you sombreros.

Okay, whatever.

There was the sombrero threat.

I don't know that.

I don't know if that's really that.

But I mean, like, that was what she was doing.

She was doing, essentially, she was acting like a guest on the view.

Yeah.

Right?

Like, oh, yeah, well, I'm a strong woman, and look at me.

I'm going to rename Europe.

Stop it.

Like, that nonsense.

But if that's what she decides to be,

she probably won't do it this way.

She'll probably complain about it.

And that's.

And if she is corrupt and in bed with the cartels, the people of Mexico will decide that after all of the pressure is off because we've killed the cartels.

I hope that's not.

I mean, I just think there is, I mean, they're going to try to cause problems in here, but I have to tell you, you have no idea what you're up against with the United States military, our special forces.

You have no idea.

Oh, these are highly trained.

Are they?

I don't know.

I'm going to put my money on the U.S.

special forces.

That's what I'm going to do.

And I don't think they're going to win in that fight.

And let me ask you this:

a related question.

We've complained a lot about DEI in the military, that the military's gone soft, that we've had all these problems.

Pete Hegseth wrote a book about it.

He's the central part of why he's going into this role.

Are we too far gone?

Is it possible that we don't have enough

of what we need in the military to accomplish these tasks anymore?

For Mexico?

No.

We're okay.

For multiple

fronts?

Yes.

For

our special forces, our teams, to go in in the dead of night and kill all these people?

No.

That's not beyond that.

We're still prepared for that.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

Good to hear.

Yeah.

So the Berna launcher was started and designed by the guy who designed it is a guy who was

on the freeway.

And somebody had road rage, and they were following him and, you know, trying to race him and everything else.

And he was really disturbed.

And he tried.

He went over to the slow lane, slowed way down.

The guy did the same thing.

So he decided, I'm just going to pull over.

The guy's not going to pull over.

He'll just pass me.

Well, when he pulled over, so did the other guy.

And the other guy just flew out of his car.

And he looks in his rearview mirror and he says, oh my gosh, this guy's coming at me.

He reached to his glove box and almost pulled out his gun, decided not to, decided to de-escalate the situation.

And he walked out and he was beaten on the side of the street within an inch of his life.

And he said, I'm not going to shoot somebody for road rage.

You know, I'm just not.

He said, I would, but I would have pulled the gun if I had to do it over again, but I don't want to kill somebody for it.

So he created the Burna launcher, which would have stopped that from happening.

Have one of these.

And in honor of Inauguration Week, they put together a custom curated bundle, discounted 15% off right now.

Get it right now.

Burna.com slash Glenn, B-Y-R-N-A dot com slash Glenn.

Now back to the podcast.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

And don't forget, rate us on iTunes.

All right, can we pull up just real quickly?

The president is addressing the World Economic Forum at Davos.

And even throughout the world,

food prices and the price of almost every other.

We're going to talk about that.

We have a couple of producers watching this for us.

They're going to give us an update on this as we go.

And we'll go back and go over his speech.

This should be hopefully a very strong speech on

America is America and we're not playing your game anymore.

But let's see.

Carol Roth is joining us now.

What do you expect the president to say in this, Carol?

I mean, I've got a hope.

I hope he says, you know, we're going to defund ourselves from you.

We're not going to support you anymore.

We're not going to give you money.

And, you know, we're sick of NGOs sticking our nose in their business, kind of like he did with the World Health Organization, which I was really excited about.

So I'll be listening for that, Glad.

I'm not sure if that'll happen this time around, but that would be best case scenario for me.

Do you think he knows who the World

Economic Forum really is?

I've got to imagine with the people who are in his circle, the same people who are advising him

on WHO, on DEI, on ESG, that I can't imagine how the World Economic Forum doesn't enter into that conversation with that group of people.

So, you know, I would be surprised, but then again, many things have surprised me over time and I'm not a betting woman.

So tell me what you see the president doing this week that you think signals really good things or bad things.

Well, I think just the general tenor of having problem solvers in the White House and on his team instead of people who are intentionally trying to create problems is a huge,

it's a huge, you know,

relief to us, right?

That we're seeing every time he's coming out with one of these executive orders or putting something out there, it's in an attempt to solve an actual real problem that is going to make America better instead of trying to create problems that is making America worse.

And so that is a very refreshing change.

Certainly there are many things to attack and we all have our wish lists of you know how that comes down.

And certainly some of these things come in partnership with Congress.

So

the number one thing

on my agenda is to try to get this Corporate Transparency Act repealed.

So it would be really great to hear him say that that's jettisoned, but I'm not sure if that's coming quite.

Well, that is being introduced by Rand Paul and somebody else in Congress.

They're trying to get.

that to go through Congress, which is good, right?

Okay, so let me give you the update on that.

So actually, so just to give people context, this is what Glenn and I have been talking about for for almost a year.

It's a rule that is basically coming from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Division of Treasury, authorized by Congress, unfortunately, that says that small business entities, so if you have an LLC or an S Corp or a C corporation, have to register with the Financial Crimes Division of Treasury.

And by the way, we're going to exempt big businesses and we're going to exempt financial services.

companies, but we really want to we really want to prevent money laundering and cartels.

So we're going after you small businesses.

And the biggest challenge, not only is that government overreach, but the fines are egregious.

You could face jail time or daily fines up to almost $600 a day.

So this is...

Hang on just a second.

When was this supposed to go into effect?

Because I haven't filed anything, nor am I going to.

Okay.

So there is an injunction in place.

So originally, the original deadline was the 31st of December.

Then we got this.

There are many lawsuits in place, but the one we're focused on is the one from the NFIB and CIR and some other folks.

And that one got a nationwide injunction put in place saying that the treasury could not enforce this and they couldn't enforce penalties.

Well, then that was overturned and then that was overturned again or stayed as they call it.

So right now where we stand is that the government has appealed the injunction, this nationwide injunction that says that you do not have to file right now.

They've appealed just that piece to the Supreme Court.

So if the Supreme Court does not overturn that injunction or stay the injunction as they call it, then this goes to the courts at the end of March.

So, we have a few different paths here.

We have the courts,

we have the Trump administration that could jettison it, and then, as you mentioned, we have Congress.

We have some wonderful members of Congress who actually introduced repeal bills last year and have now reintroduced them.

So, in the House, that is Representative Warren Davidson of Ohio, and in the Senate, it is Tommy Tubberville.

And we have gotten lots of co-sponsors.

So, right now,

I heard this morning

in the House, we have 79 co-sponsors.

It's called the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act.

And then, as you mentioned, on the Senate side, you have really big names like Rand Paul, who are now co-sponsored.

So, this is getting momentum.

We're getting more members of Congress to understand how devastating this is for small business.

So, it's the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, perfectly named this time around.

And what we need is we need everybody to call their representatives, call your senators, and tell them if they're not already one of the co-sponsors, they need to jump on because that is just the surest way.

If Congress is to repeal that, then this is done.

We don't have to worry about the Trump administration.

We don't have to worry about anything else.

And I will have to say,

I personally sent an email to Scott Besson at Treasury.

So I don't know.

Where does he stand on that?

So it's interesting.

So I don't, I've only met him, I think, once or twice in the media.

So I don't really know him personally, but I sent a message there anyway.

He is a big Main Street supporter.

He did a great presentation at the Manhattan Institute over the summer where he talked about this big tent that the Republicans are creating and how crucial it is for small businesses to participate.

And he has echoed that language.

We heard that from him again in his testimony, how important small business is.

So the fact that he understands that Main Street needs to be leading this growth forward, I think is really huge.

Let's hope that that means that he understands how this kind of regulation, because he's also a deregulation guy.

Let's hope that he understands that this is important.

But again, he hasn't been confirmed yet.

He's not in place.

So we're just, we're trying to work all these different angles.

Right.

And I have to tell you, I like that we are using the system and not necessarily running this through an executive order, which could just be next president could come in.

The best thing that could happen is it goes through Congress and they repeal it because then they have to relaunch it again the next time, not just, you know, undo an executive order.

True, but at the same time, Treasury does fall under the executive branch, and Treasury is the one that's putting this out.

So if Treasury says we're going to jettison it, yes, we could get it back again, but it would be a good step that I think would give Congress a lot of comfort in terms of going through with the repeal.

Okay, so let's talk a little bit about China.

China is.

I mean, it appeared last week, and I said, I don't know if I said this on the air, but I said, what happened to China, I think it was last week when they really hit

some real trouble in the overnight markets, and it looks like their banks were collapsing, et cetera, et cetera.

It looked to me like Bear Stearns.

That

this was the warning sign that things are really dicey in China.

Am I overreacting to that?

So it's interesting.

I think there are two camps here.

And the camp that you're talking about is certainly the one that we're hearing more about.

A lot of people saying, oh, China is going to break.

And, you know, they're going to, they're going down.

They're in this deflationary spiral.

Is it that great?

Of course, you know, me being the nerd that I am, Glenn, you know, I spent a lot of time reading economic research.

And there is this contrarian view that there are some metrics that are happening that don't really add up.

And the fact that China may have more runway than us actually says that this may be worse for us than China.

So let me just give you a thought experiment for a second.

So China is in this crazy, you know, supposed spiral.

Everything's about to break.

Where would the flight to safety, in your estimation, be if that were really the case?

If China were about to break?

Yeah, where's the flight to safety?

It would be the United States.

Right, U.S.

Treasury markets, right?

That would be

the safe bet.

And historically, you know, the last 10 years, when there's some kind of issue with the yuan you would see that kind of showing up in the treasury market in a very correlated way but in the exact opposite is happening our we're not getting our yields down but when there's more interest in the treasury market right there's more demand for the bonds and the bonds and the yields trade in in opposite directions you would see our yields coming down now the fed has cut rates in the 10-year yield what's been happening It's been going up.

It's been going up.

So if China were in so much trouble, wouldn't everybody be flocking flocking to the U.S.

market?

And wouldn't our yields be going in the opposite direction?

Why do you suppose they're not?

What information does somebody have?

Yeah, that's a signpost that says, well, maybe it's actually worse for us that this is happening and there's a bigger issue at play than for China.

Another one of these signposts, same kind of thing, that.

with China potentially in this really bad situation and maybe you've got tariffs coming down the line, all these things, you would typically think that they would be raising a lot of dollars.

And to do that, they might be selling their gold.

Well, what has China been doing?

They've been stockpiling.

They've been doing the opposite.

They've been taking it in.

So we're getting these decoupling of macroeconomic rules that have been in place.

And one of the theses out there, and I'll tell you, I'm not a China expert, but from an econ standpoint, I'm listening to all the different takes to see what makes sense.

We do not have a lot of runway.

And I'm sure we'll get into that in a little bit.

And China has more runway.

So, if things go a little sideways there, they have more options to fix it.

Or maybe by them going sideways, that has a reverberation that actually sends us and the entire

western part of the world into a debt spiral.

So, the question is really who's in a worse situation here.

And so, I think that

the obvious answer is: oh no, what's going to happen directly with China?

And I think that the more important thing is what's going to happen with us as a result of what's going on with China.

Okay, so

is China now in the situation where we used to be?

They used to say if America catches a cold, the rest of the world has pneumonia.

Are we kind of in that situation with China yet?

So I think it's in a different scenario.

So I think that from us, it was from a hegemony standpoint that we were

kind of the anchor of the global financial system.

And so if we caught a cold, everybody else got a little bit of the sneeze that was sprinkled on them.

Here, I think it's more sinister.

Here, I think it's about what is China doing and perhaps Russia and some of these other countries doing, knowing that it potentially could put pressure on the Western world to create these debt spirals, to create these massive issues,

and to create obviously a lack of confidence in our currency, which again, going back to what I was pointing about, about the

safe haven of the bond market, that that's no longer the safe haven, it does sort of raise

somebody's eyebrow to say,

why is that happening?

And it seems like China, who plays the long game, may be doing it intentionally.

So I think

we may be catching a cold more in the Wuhan way than in the traditional U.S.

way.

You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck podcast.

Hear more of this interview and others with the full show podcast available wherever you get podcasts.

If you have been following this show,

I have talked about things for 30 years, and it is a little terrifying to talk to you about things

that were all theory

that

I saw coming, and most people denied that it could even happen.

And

some people are still denying that it's going to happen.

But I told you it would happen by 2030.

And we are at the doorstep.

And so it is very important

that you understand this.

We are at a place right now

that could be remembered as the catastrophic moment for humanity.

This week is going to be remembered.

And for one event, and not Donald Trump's inauguration, it's going to be remembered for one event.

And that event is either going to be the largest catastrophe in humanity, the last chance we had to stop it, or the greatest thing that has happened to mankind since we learned to harness electricity.

I honestly, and no one will be able to tell you which it's going to be.

We will only know after it happens.

What I do know is that we are at an inflection point with technology, and we as humans are in tremendous danger.

They announced this week the beginning of Stargate.

It happened on Tuesday.

Stargate is a brand new company that's goal is to build out massive AI infrastructure.

Now, I want to put this into perspective.

You know when they said the planet will be destroyed and humans will not be able to live within 50 years or 100 years because everything's going to be destroyed by global warming?

And we said, well, if you believe that, you should put nuclear power back on the table.

We should be building the cleanest energy that is possible.

And they said, well, no, we've got to build new cars.

And now you know the fact that we don't have the infrastructure for electric cars.

Our power grid cannot handle electric cars, at least in any

real amount.

30% of the country is on electric cars.

The power grid won't hold.

You know this because California, when it was having its rolling brownouts and blackouts, what was the first thing they said?

Do not plug in your electric car.

But nobody was talking about building nuclear power plants.

Nobody was talking about changing the infrastructure.

Everybody was saying it was way too expensive.

We can't change the infrastructure of our power grid.

But now that we are on the verge of AGI and ASI, something that people will still deny is close,

I'm telling you by 2030, it will be here, if not earlier.

Now that we are on that horizon and we see that this is possible, all the powers that be, the same people that told us about

global warming, the same companies that were trying to get us to eat bugs, the same companies that have anti-human policies,

They were not about human expansion.

They were about the opposite, right?

Control in the

of saving the planet.

Now that we are on this road for AGI or ASI, suddenly we have to have nuclear power plants.

I think it's Microsoft that just bought Three Mile Island.

Wait, what?

I thought that was the most dangerous place on the planet.

Microsoft needs it for AI.

Stargate is

going to build massive infrastructure, especially data centers and electricity generation.

You're going to see these anti-human people

now building electricity generation systems and cloud systems

for AI to assist you.

You're going to start hearing a word if you haven't already.

You're not going to hear about AI as much as you're going to hear about agents.

They'll be called AI agents, but you are, this is the last generation right now, this may be the last year

that humans are not dealing with AI agents.

This era is over.

An AI agent is going to sound really great at first.

It's going to be able to make your travel plans.

It's going to be able to clean up your life.

You won't have to have a secretary.

Even people who are poor are going to live like they have a personal secretary at their disposal to take care of all of these things that they don't want to do.

It's going to be mighty tempting.

And AI agents, the first ones, will be introduced in 2025.

My feeling.

When you get to AGI,

artificial general intelligence, and they're as smart as you are, can do as many things that you can do and more,

and are flawless at it,

how are you going to say no?

Now here's the thing.

The AI revolution that is desired by big tech

cannot happen,

but it's going to.

I've been talking about this for 30 years, and if you've listened to me, you remember me saying, please, we have to have these conversations before it hits.

It's too late.

So we are out of good options.

You know, we just saw them shut down AI because they did a test.

If they tell AI to survive, or if it interprets its mission as a critical function,

It will find the power and build electricity generation plants itself and drain our electricity in ways you will not spot until it's too late.

It can build server farms without anyone suspecting that it's AI or an AI agent behind it.

Now, President Trump is clearly very excited about this potential, as we all should be.

We will cure cancer by 2030.

That's quite a ballsy statement to make, but I believe by 2030, we will cure cancer.

Who's against that?

How can you possibly say no to these things?

And the dark side of AI is it is the ultimate jailer.

It will control your every move and every thought.

Do you want China doing that?

As I said, we are at a place where it's too late to have these conversations because somebody's going to get it.

And Donald Trump wants to make sure it's us.

And I think that's the best of the the worst possibilities.

Now, he's excited about it as it pertains to economic development because whoever wins this will control so much.

But it's principal's investors, the principal investors in Stargate, they have pledged $100 billion in initial funding and $400 billion more over the next several years.

Side note, Elon Musk said they only have $10 billion.

This is not going to happen.

So is it going to happen or not?

I don't know.

But they are projecting the creation of 100,000 jobs or more.

That's a good thing.

But understand, those jobs are just to build the infrastructure.

These are not long-term jobs.

Now, what's not getting a lot of attention that needs to is that the major players behind this project are not trustworthy.

Do you remember when I was

at

Amfest this year and I started talking about we've got to know who is involved with this administration because there are going to be chameleons that come in?

I said this.

So we have to look for the light that is between us.

We have to know who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, who's actually on the team.

And now that we have all of this popularity, suddenly Donald Trump is cool with everyone.

We have to make sure those who wear masks are not coming in and claiming to be part of this team, and they have no intention of being on the team.

Well, that's who you have now

in this launch of Stargate.

I want to go over this quickly, and then I'm going to bring Justin Haskins in, who can clear some of this up.

But

Open AI, SoftBank, and Oracle, led by Larry Ellison, are three of the major figures that come up in the news reports.

But there is another major financier.

It's MGX.

Now, this is an extreme wealth tech investment firm based in the UAE.

The UAE government created MGX last year to be a leader in AI investment.

The UAE government is closely aligned with the World Economic Forum and it has been for a long time.

It co-created the great narrative effort in the WEF.

That's one of the primary subjects in our book, Dark Future.

If you have not read Dark Future, you must go back and look at it.

They are highly supportive of designing AI and other emerging technologies with ESG in mind.

They are no friend to individual liberty, at least any way that Americans would understand liberty.

The UAE are also the same people who have said at the great narrative event that humanity needs a new great narrative because, and I'm quoting, soon our digital world will be as important as the physical world.

End quote.

They also said we're entering a quote new era of human evolution, end quote, and quote, a second wave of human evolution.

All of this is in dark future.

Their involvement from the UAE in Stargate should be deeply troubling.

But what's made more disturbing is the fact that MGX is also a player in what I think is another $100 billion AI infrastructure effort that was launched in late 2024.

It may be rolled into this one, I'm not sure.

But that project involves BlackRock, not good people, Global Infrastructure Partners, which has been taken over by BlackRock, not good, Microsoft, not good, and the UAE, also not good.

Now, Microsoft and BlackRock also heavily evolved in the Great Reset Movement, worked closely with the WEF over the last years, and Larry Ellison, the man behind Oracle, is one of the central figures behind Stargate.

He's on record gleefully predicting that AI will soon create the world's most sophisticated surveillance system.

Discussing the surveillance system, Ellison said, and I quote, citizens will have to be on their best behavior, end quote.

I want you to know there is

another completely separate movement that is happening that I believe is the antidote of this.

You are not going to stop this, but you need to know what's going on.

You must understand what's coming so you can be on the other side of this.

Martha listens to her favorite band all the time.

In the car,

gym.

Even sleeping.

So when they finally went on tour, Martha bundled her flight and hotel on Expedia to see them live.

She saved so much, she got a seat close enough to actually see and hear them.

Sort of.

You were made to scream from the front row.

We were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are at all protected.