Best of the Program | Guests: Pedro Domingos & Bill O’Reilly | 2/9/23

I get so many headaches every month.

It could be chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more.

Botox, autobotulinum toxin A, prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine.

It's not for those who have 14 or fewer headache days a month.

Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor.

Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms.

Alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition.

Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk.

Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck, and injection, site pain, fatigue, and headache.

Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness.

Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection.

Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS Lugerig's disease, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert Eaton syndrome, and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.

Why wait?

Ask your doctor.

Visit BotoxChronicMigraine.com or call 1-800-44-BOTOX to learn more.

Hey, everybody.

Great podcast for you.

Today, we start with,

did we blow up the Nord Stream pipeline?

And what does that mean?

We're getting into some really dicey territory.

And

people in the Senate and Congress don't know what's true and what's not.

Can we prove this?

And what's with the story that was released two hours later was kind of a tit for tat.

Oh yeah, well look at this now breaking on CNN about Vladimir Putin.

Are we watching a play?

That's all coming up.

Also Bill O'Reilly and

AI Week continues.

We have

a great,

great professor of computer science that's won the highest awards in machine learning and AI.

He has a happier version of AI, but still a warning, especially to conservatives.

He says you're way behind.

That's coming up all on today's podcast.

Brought to you by Jace Medical, the American Society of Healthcare Pharmacists, the group that tracks the production of medications around the world.

They have declared a worldwide shortage of many antibiotics, specifically amoxicillin.

That is a critical drug used to combat all kinds of infections.

You don't want to be out of antibiotics.

I mean, that would not be good.

Now, when we go on vacation, sometimes, you you know, we can go, you know, out of the country or Mexico or

we'll go up to our ranch in the mountains.

And, you know, we're 45 minutes, an hour away from a hospital, let alone a doctor.

So if something happens up there, can we just treat it ourselves with amoxicillin?

That's what the Jace case from Jace Medical is all about.

When you can't get to a doctor or you can't get the prescriptions, Jace Medical has you covered.

Go to jacemedical.com, jacemedical.com, look look at their Jace case.

It has the antibiotics that you can always have on hand.

Use the promo code BEC10 and save 10 bucks off the order.

It's jacemedical.com, offer code BEC10.

You're listening to

the best of the Benenbeck program.

All right, I want to bring in, I want to bring in Jason Battrill, who is with me

and is going to explain exactly what is going on with this one report from one source.

So I say that

clearly at the beginning.

There's problems with this reporting because it is one source, and I wouldn't take that from the New York Times as gospel.

So let's remember one source, but it's pretty damning.

It has a ton of facts.

Tell me the story, Jason, on what happened and where this report's coming from.

I struggle to even really describe how to even tell the story because it sounds like, are you familiar with the term fan fiction?

Yes.

It's like, that's why there's like off the internet, like, what would really happen if Anakin Skywalker didn't become Darth Vader?

This is the story.

Right.

That's what it sounds like.

Right.

But I mean, Mike Lee is exactly right.

If this is true, this is an act of war.

And what they're alleging is that the CIA, the Biden administration came up with a plan to eliminate the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to blow it up.

And we all remember, I think I even came on this program and said, I think you asked me, was like, do you think this was us?

And I'd be like, and then I was like, well, no, we would never risk something like a direct attack on a Russian asset.

Right.

Never risk it.

Here's the thing.

I think it was Germany or Sweden.

Somebody just released a report that showed Russia didn't do it.

Yeah.

And how many countries have the ability to do something like this?

This was not an easy hit.

Not an easy hit and not even an easy hit for Americans.

I mean, it would take a long time.

I mean, it would take very specific assets like, you know, SEAL Team 6 or something like that.

Correct.

But the article goes into that.

They couldn't use a SEAL Team 6 or anyone in JSOC's Joint Special Operation Command because they'd have to go through Congress.

Now, this is a big part of the story, if true.

They use some obscure Navy divers that are not part of JSOC.

So then the CIA could use them in a joint intelligence operation, not a military operation, an intelligence operation that would allow them to keep this quiet from Congress.

Now, think about that.

Like Mike Lee said, this would be an act of war if we did it and they found out, but we didn't inform Congress about it, if true.

So there is multiple layers to this, even right off the bat.

Who is this written by?

This is written by a guy named Seymour Hirsch.

He wrote for the, I think, New York Times.

He was a guy who got the

Pulitzer for exposing the My Lay

Vietnam.

So, and he has done many

exposés, but they generally kind of lean against America, do they not?

Yeah, there was the one in, well, just the, I guess the bigger one would be Osama bin Laden questioning, you know, how all of that went down.

He even actually questioned Osama bin Laden's culpability in 9-11.

So it almost, okay, this is what you kind of see with journalists nowadays, especially

we saw this in the Russia Gate stuff.

It's almost like they got on this Woodward and Bernstein high, and they all want to top each other off of it.

So like, where do you go after topping something like, you know, Woodward and Bernstein?

They're like getting more and more fantastical and always trying to one-up.

Well, but not necessarily.

I mean, this, this story is why you need

a credible press, why you need journalistic standards and not activists.

Because we are dealing with a story now that if it is true,

the American people wouldn't have gone for this, but it's the American people, if true, that will pay the price.

It will be our sons and daughters.

fighting a war with Russia and probably half of the world because of something our out-of-control deep state did.

And we wouldn't have been for it.

Now,

how do we prove it?

Who do you believe?

Do you believe the investigators with Congress?

Do you believe the investigators from the New York Times?

Who do you believe?

There's one source on this, which I'd love to have, because you were former military intel.

So I would love to have your thought on this.

Something this large, because the story is pages and pages and pages and has great detail in it.

Yeah.

It's all coming from one source.

What are the odds that something this secret, this complex,

had

more than a few, maybe five, maybe five key holders that could unlock all of the information?

So let me just, from my Intel perspective, and my real world experience is Afghanistan.

I was one of the first ground troops conventional into Afghanistan after 9-11.

So I was part of the planning phase just on my small level, my unit.

I didn't know that certain things that were going on in northern Afghanistan.

I knew a lot of stuff in the south.

When we got on the ground, I didn't even know that there was

special forces in certain areas that had been there for a while.

That was not my need to know.

Didn't need to know that.

Correct.

And that was right before a war.

So just that perspective.

There's no way,

in my mind, that a mid or lower level, say that carefully, person would have operational knowledge in that detail.

You would need cabinet level

or director level access.

Now, it's interesting because the way you're phrasing this and you're being very, very accurate on things, a cabinet level or

director level might have this information.

Why would you bring up director level information on something this sensitive and I mean, director level, this was done by the CIA, okay?

So

at least in this report, done by the CIA.

So it would mean what?

Like the director of the CIA, why would he rat himself out?

I mean, that's a really good question, unless he was doing his duty and did not believe in what they were doing.

Is there any example of a director level spilling their guts on something like this?

Deep throat?

Deep throat?

Oh, that's right.

That was the director of the FBI, right?

Which we found out years.

Was it decades?

Oh, decades.

Yeah, decades later.

Decades later.

But then we were always like, there's no way.

Like, how is how is he getting all this information?

It's like, how the heck?

That was a big part of it.

Who is your source?

Never would have believed in my wildest dreams that it was

the director of the FBI.

Never.

And that's like this.

Like,

will we decades later say, how the heck did this guy get his information when we find out was the director of the CIA?

If it's true.

If it's true.

Now,

where do you go from here?

Where do we go from here?

Because

no Western ally is going to verify this.

No.

No Western.

I mean, even if it is true and they hate the fact that it's true, they know if we

say, you know what, I think it was the United States, this is an act of war.

Yeah.

And Russia has the

righteous stance in the world to take us down or attempt to take us down, take us to war.

That is an act of war.

So

what what

does this mean?

How How do we ever find out anything?

Russia has actually responded.

And they've said that because of these new air quote facts

that the White House needs to respond to this or to answer.

Of course, the White House, the State Department, and the CIA have all been asked and they've all categorically denied it.

But the article was so specific to answer your question in certain ways that...

you know, in time, in the timeframes that they pulled this off.

For instance, the article goes into there was a big naval exercise that that they used as cover to send in these divers.

And that exercise did happen.

That exercise did happen.

He even puts a link into their specific excuse about using divers to

show off the capabilities of their mind-clearing capabilities.

But it's, I mean, you know, even Satan uses some truth and then mixes it with falsehood.

So, I mean, you know, that doesn't prove anything.

Right, right.

But so there's that, which maybe they can, I don't know, use some kind of, maybe they were surveilling the areas.

Maybe they could look at something.

I don't know.

But then he also goes in very specifically the type of mind they use to get around the Russian detection capabilities.

They go into that.

Then they go into, and this is, this kind of seemed weird, about how they were going to detonate like 72 hours or 48 hours after this exercise.

Correct.

And then all of a sudden they had this afterthought of, oh, maybe that seems kind of suspicious.

Maybe we shouldn't just have it on a time detonation a couple of days after the exercise.

That doesn't.

That doesn't jive with me.

No, that doesn't.

So then they were like, oh, let's send in this like buoy that like has this high-tech ping that can, you know, we'll drop it from a plane and it'll set off these charges.

That also seems odd to me.

That also seems something that the Russians might be able to verify.

So I, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised right now if there are Russian surveillance planes flying over the area, gathering intel, possibly, you know, attempting to go and look, take a second look.

I don't, I definitely don't think we've heard the last of this.

So I'm sure they're going to try and verify it if they can, but they're Russians, really.

So even if they don't, they're probably just going to say, yeah, they did it anyway, right?

I mean, I would.

I would too.

I would.

And quite honestly.

I'm not sure we didn't do it.

I'm not either.

Which is wild.

I never would have thought of this.

You know, 20 years ago, I would have said absolutely not.

No way.

No way.

But if you hit me today

if 9-11 happened and we heard you know bush and clinton and we had exactly what happened with sandy berger um at the national archives where he's smuggling documents out about bush and clinton um and anything related to uh osama bin laden prior to the bombing

i i i i would deeply question our government we we have come a long way on finding out how bad our government can be and has been in the past.

The problem with this is, is you are going to pay the price.

If this happened or if Russia decides to go with it, you, your son, your daughter, you're going to pay the price.

And that's what's so infuriating.

Because if it is true, The American people should demand that these people, whoever was involved, whoever had this decision,

is in prison and punished.

And you know what?

I would be fine.

I don't care who it is.

Let me just say this.

And it wasn't, it couldn't have been because he wasn't in office.

But to show you how passionate, even if it was the former president, go ahead, send him over to Russia.

Let him face a trial over in Russia.

I'm sorry, but you do something like this and you don't inform Congress.

I mean, this is the tweet from Mike Lee last night.

I'm troubled that I can't immediately rule this suggestion that the U.S.

blew up the Nord stream out.

He can't rule it out.

I checked with a bunch of Senate colleagues.

Among those I've asked, none were ever briefed on this.

If it turns out to be true, we've got a huge problem.

Yeah, we do.

Yeah, we do.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

We want to welcome

our guest from the University of Washington Computer Science.

He is a professor there and also the author of a book that came out a few years ago, The Master Algorithm.

His name is Pedro Domingos.

Pedro, how are you, sir?

Great.

How are you?

I'm very good.

Very good.

You know, I was a little nervous when I heard University of Washington.

I'm like, okay, well, I don't think you'll even come on, but I welcome you here.

We have had a heck of a time trying to get people to talk about AI

because

sometimes they're very, very left and they don't want to be on the program.

And I'm like, well, this is a human issue.

This is not something that the right should be educated or the left should be educated on.

The right shouldn't be.

And especially with what we are facing, do you agree that this is one of the greatest things and possibly one of the worst things?

Oh, yes, I very much agree.

And also part of the problem is that the left is on top of it.

I don't think the right has quite woken up yet, but it needs to.

So

I've heard you describe this as

the greatest authoritarian tool ever invented.

That's correct.

So AI is potentially the greatest tool of totalitarianism that has ever been invented.

AI is a very powerful technology.

It can be used for good or bad.

But in particular, if you're a dictator, AI is the dream come true.

AI will do everything you want.

It will surveil everybody 24 by 7.

It will never get tired.

It will never question you.

It will keep records.

It will, you know,

it's scary.

It's totally.

Yes.

I mean, AI can do things that no dictator would, even in their dreams, think of 50 years ago.

And unfortunately, in a country like China, it's already happening.

I mean, you know,

what's amazing is if you know history back in World War II, IBM with the punch cards, they were

Germans were doing their census with these punch cards.

And it was the punch cards that

allowed the Germans to find the Jews.

They could just sort everybody by their race, et cetera, et cetera.

And that greatly helped them.

I think if you had technology in the hands of somebody like Hitler or Mao,

you wouldn't have a Jew left on the planet today.

Would you agree with that?

It's that

all-seeing, all-knowing, and in the wrong hands

could annihilate and carry out genocide unlike anything we've ever seen.

It is, but on the other hand, the Jews would be using the technology as well.

In fact, if you look at what's happened in in Hong Kong, for example, the protesters there actually got very savvy about using tech to counteract the Chinese tech.

So I don't know who's winning out in the end.

I think, you know, I wouldn't give up the Jews just like that.

But the point is, if they didn't use tech and

the Nazis used tech, they would be toasted.

Okay.

So

there is so much to talk to you about because you're into machine learning, which

if you can explain, break it down to a

dummy like me, what machine learning is and why we should care about it.

So AI is getting computers to do the things that only humans traditionally can do, like solving problems and reasoning and seeing and talking.

Machine learning in particular is getting computers to learn the same way children and grown-ups do.

So it's a very powerful thing is the computer instead of having to be programmed, it can actually learn just by imitating people, by looking at data.

It can learn to drive a car by watching videos of people driving cars.

It can learn to play chess by playing against itself and so on.

And machine learning is at the root of all these things that AI is doing today.

And does it have a way to recognize, ow, don't touch the stove.

Stove is hot.

I mean, that's an

important part of learning.

In fact, this is a part of learning called reinforcement learning, and the term actually comes from psychology, which is when you touch the stove and burn yourself you learn to not do it again and we have algorithms in machine learning to do essentially the same thing

okay so

when you look at

the

the principles of machine learning and we have to understand that the algorithm we have an algorithm that we use and machines are developing this algorithm and it the tremendous side of of this is just making your life really, really easy and even all the way down to helping you find the perfect spouse.

And I mean, really perfect spouse, right?

Well, machine learning can do a lot of different things for you.

Think of all the things that we learn to do if the computer can learn to do them for you.

Not only can it make your life a lot easier by taking away a lot of the routine stuff, you can now do things to an extent and in an amount that you couldn't before.

If you have a project project that you pay a few people to work on you could potentially have not just a few ais working on it but a million or a billion so you know whatever is that you want to do machine learning you can think of it it's like an intelligence multiplier you now have a thousand or a million times more intelligent at your disposal but it's not whether you but it's not just um

uh intelligence i mean talk to me about the digital twin theory that on dating for instance um

you know it will date your digital twin that knows you better than you know you will go out and, you know,

basically go on digital dates with somebody else's digital twin.

And it could do that, you know, a billion times and find somebody that you would have never found.

Yes, that's a great example.

So these days, you can in principle date you know all sorts of different people, but you don't have time to date them in real life.

And then you usually waste a lot of your time just on dates maybe that don't really pan out.

And what machine learning increasingly is going to let you do is there's a model of you, really a digital version of you, that can go on simulated dates with

the models of other people and do this an arbitrary number of times.

And then what the system does, it says, look, here are the top 10 people that I dated as your avatar, as they're called.

And do you want to take these in real life now?

And then you can do that, and then you give it some feedback, and next time maybe it finds you even better people.

So anytime you have to make choices, whether it's just on the web or listening to something on the radio, machine learning already helps you, but this can go as far as helping you choose a major, choose a job, choose a company to work for, and even choose a mate for life.

And I mean, this is not a theoretical possibility.

There are already children today who wouldn't have been born if not for the AI much that they're that matched up their parents online.

It wasn't with a simulation yet.

It was by looking at questionnaires and data and whatnot, but this is where things are headed.

Right.

And so I just want to set up some of the good things that could happen.

Tell me the good things that will happen with eye tracking.

You know, the Apple has their $3,000

virtual reality

glasses coming out

and augmented reality, and it has a camera pointed directly at your eyes too, and it's tracking.

And

what will that information do on the positive side?

It will do a lot of things because your eyes, you think of them as input.

It's how you see things, but they're also output.

If you're looking at my eyes while I'm talking, you can tell all sorts of things about me.

And in particular,

what I'm interested in, where I'm going.

And in particular, in VR, as I move my eyes, the scene needs to change as I move them.

And you need AI, you need computer vision to do that.

So if you think about the way people interact with computers, you know, in the beginning it was by typing and now there's a mouse and so on.

But really, ultimately, you'd like to interact them as just to interact with the real world.

And

eye tracking will let you do that.

So let me take it again back to dating.

But if I'm tracking your eye, I know when you look at a picture what you look at first and then what you look at second and third.

And if I get enough pictures in front of you, I pretty much know the woman that you're attracted to.

I know what you like and what you don't like, correct?

Yes, indeed.

And even even a finite detail, right?

You can tell exactly what my path was from somebody's nose to their left eye to their right eye to whatever.

So think about knowing what somebody is interested in, that level of detail, and this is what we're heading towards.

And what would that tell you if you're you're going from one eye to the other to the nose?

Why is that important?

Well, I'm just giving that as an example.

You know, people have actually done this and

your eyes are typically what you look at most when you're looking at someone

or the mouth when they're speaking and so on and so forth.

And you can look at, for example, how people look at different pictures and what parts they focus on versus what parts they focus on.

So for example, you could tell what parts of somebody's body somebody's looking at, right?

For better or worse.

So tell me,

tell me,

there is so much information on each of us.

And it used to be, well, this is metadata.

So

we don't know who anybody is.

But AI can now break down that metadata and assign it to individuals, right?

One of the things that AI is doing is it's...

It's finding ways to make sense of all of the data that is out at all times, correct?

Yes, in the early days of the internet, there was this joke that on the internet, no one knows you're a dog because it was so anonymous.

And it's ironic because it's precisely the opposite.

These days on the internet, in some ways, the companies that you're interacting with, you know you better than anybody else because they can see everything that you've clicked on and everything that you've done.

Now, in some ways, that's a good thing because they're using that to figure out what you prefer, right?

What products you want to buy, what

things you want to listen to, et et cetera, et cetera.

So this personalization is very important because in a world of infinite choice, without personalization,

you're basically helpless.

On the other hand, of course, it also makes it possible to potentially manipulate you, repress you, who knows what.

So

we're talking to Pedro Domingos.

He is a professor, a computer science professor at the University of Washington.

He's also the author of The Master Algorithm,

which is, is that kind of like the grand unifying theory, but just of algorithms?

That's exactly the idea, is that there's different algorithms to do machine learning that solve different problems.

But to get to human-level AI, we need to solve all of them at the same time.

And the goal is to have a singular algorithm that combines them all.

And there's some way that, for example, in physics, there's a theory of all the forces, and in biology, there's a theory of how cells work and so on.

Do you believe in the singularity, meaning

A, the merging of man and machine, that that's inevitable, and B,

the singularity of consciousness of

computers?

I believe in the singularity in the sense that the humans and machines will merge.

In fact, we're already merging.

The way things get done is an ever more intricate

mix of humans and computers.

But I don't think the singularity will happen in the sense that Ray Kurzweil has described where intelligence in the universe just goes to infinity.

That's what a singularity is, is something going to infinity.

I think there are physical limits on what intelligence can be and how it works.

And also there's this notion that in the singularity, people just don't understand the AI at all anymore.

And

these days we have technology that in many ways we don't understand.

But I don't think it will ever be the case that we completely don't understand it and completely bypasses it.

And most important, the idea in the singularity is that like now humans have lost control, right?

It's the AIs that run the world and bye-bye humans.

And I think we can stay and probably should stay in control forever.

And AI can be very powerful, but still be under our control.

It's actually something that people often don't understand.

Just because we make the AI very smart doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to take over.

Unless we let it.

Unless we let it.

Exactly.

Unless we let it or worse, unless we let people, you know, like the bad guys are trying to control AI.

It's correct.

We've got to control AI ourselves.

I mean, that's one of the things.

I've said this for years and years and years.

Don't fear AI.

Fear the people who are writing the programs for AI.

Watch those people because those who control it can use it for their own devices.

But AI is neither bad nor good.

It's whose hands is it in control of?

Exactly.

I mean, an AI AI is like a car, right?

You know, the bank robbers can use a car.

That's not a reason to not have cars or to, you know, forbid highways.

It's a reason for the police to have faster cars than the bank robbers do.

And it's the same thing with AI.

It can use for good or bad.

And at the end of the day, you know, what matters is to use it.

So everybody needs to learn how to use AI.

so that they use it in their interest.

So there's not the government using AI or companies using AI to

make decisions for them or even worse, dictate what they do.

You're listening to the best of the Glenbeck program.

Hey, if you haven't already, gone to Glenbeck.com.

Get access to the research from last night's Wednesday night special all about artificial intelligence.

It includes the videos that come from China.

I mean, it is, it's some spectacularly spooky stuff.

It really is.

You can find it now at Glenbeck.com and get ahead of this.

Be able to teach this to your friends on what is on our doorstep.

You can also, when you sign up for the newsletter, you'll not only get that as a bonus today, but you will also get my show prep every day.

You'll get about 60 to 80 stories sometimes that I think are important, but really only about 15 of them will make it on the air.

But they're all worth reading.

And you can find that and get that free at glennbeck.com.

Last night, I got a text from Mike Lee.

It said,

check my Twitter feed.

So I did, if false, slander, if true, war.

And it was the story about how we may have blown up the Nordstream pipeline.

I wrote to him right before I came on the air today and I said, you know, so what do I tell the people?

And he said, I would tell your audience, We don't know whether or not this is true.

Lone author writing on Substack, relying on a single source isn't good, but

we have no confidence either way.

Is it true?

I don't know.

But if it's true, it's a real problem, a huge, quoting, huge problem of epic proportions.

Plus, who else might have done this?

Who else had the capacity?

Mike will be joining me tomorrow to flesh that out, but I wanted to get Bill O'Reilly on to see if he has an initial take, because I think this is all about the loss of the press and credibility.

We don't know who to believe and what to believe.

Bill, welcome.

Beck, I'm sending you some free stuff before we get into this on team normal.

Are you on team normal?

I don't know what team normal is.

If

you're the head of team normal, I think you might want to read

it to you anyway.

So it's team normal versus team crazy.

Yeah.

If you listen to Governor Huckabee Sanders' speech.

So I'm on team normal.

I know that's been disputed.

Yes.

Yes.

But on billoriley.com, we got the hats and the shirts.

We got our bumper stickers.

And if you want to be on team normal, all right, and I think you do, Beck.

I would like a team crazy.

Do you sell the team crazy?

No, we don't want to promote the team crazy.

Well,

I thought I could just wear it once in a while as a dad around the house.

You know what I mean?

All right.

Now, Seymour Hirsch, who wrote this story on Substack, about the pipeline, is a loon.

Okay, lost his mind about, I don't know, 30 years ago, in my opinion, my humble opinion.

It's a

subjective analysis of Mr.

Hirsch.

He did good work in Vietnam.

But after that, it was just crazy time.

Yeah, he has come up with a lot of things

and not usually verifiable.

Never borne out.

So he loves this.

Knowing the Biden administration the way I do, I think it's almost impossible

that Joe Biden would

order

an attack on the Nord Stream pipeline.

He just doesn't have

that kind of grit,

and that could start a world war with nukes.

So I would say

to Senator Lee with respect, I don't believe the story as it stands.

Well, he said he,

in all fairness, that's what he said.

I don't believe it, but I can't dismiss it either.

Well, I can't dismiss Martians from Venus.

I mean, you know,

they would be

tourists on Venus.

Why would Martians be on Venus?

Why do I go this conspiracy route all day long,

but I'm a fact-based guy.

Correct.

And the only people really watching is never going going to get any reporting out of Russia that's worth anything.

You can't believe anything they say.

But the Swedes,

Olaf and the Swedes

and that group over there, what are they?

Yeah, they're watching it.

So

at this point, I think this isn't really

something that America should be concerned about.

Do you want to get into the State of the Union?

Because I have one thing that everybody missed, Beck.

Yeah, I do, but I want to take this conversation one step further.

Sure.

The problem with this story, Bill, is

we have been lied to so many times by our administration, by our media, that I find myself in a position to where

I can't make a call on a few things like this.

I'm like, I don't think we did that.

But if we did do that, it'd be really horrible.

But I don't think we could ever prove it

no one is a journalist anymore nobody actually

even if you were a journalist I am a journalist and I can scuba dive

you want to put me in a little bell right oh I'd love to put you in a little bell I know you would

jealous jealous guy

anyway all right but it's impossible you just can't get to that kind of a story

so do you do you believe we'll ever find out who blew it up?

Because somebody did.

You know, look, I don't know whether that is a physiological fact that somebody did.

You're way under the water.

You got all kinds of combustibles going through the pipeline.

Certainly it could have been some kind of malfunction.

So I don't think I would go with sabotage 100% at this point.

I think the Swedes and Elsa.

And her sister were there.

Yeah.

Yeah, I believe they investigated.

It was sabotage.

Okay.

So tell me what we missed on the State of the Union.

Okay, and the guy in the Wall Street Journal just ripped off my analysis.

Henninger is his name today.

So right after the

State of the Union, I did instant analysis on radio and television.

That's what I do for a living.

And I said, look, did you not pick up the

living wage comment?

And you're an expert at this.

At the end of it, he's going, everybody should be in a union because everybody should have a living wage and everybody should have health care, you know, the usual.

A living wage, okay, is a Marxist tenet.

Yes.

That means the government sets everybody's salary.

Nobody, no corporation or company is going to set a living wage.

So I brought it to Cuomo last night.

I do a hit with him on Wednesday on News Nation, which you should watch, just because you'll be entertained, Beck.

All right.

And I said to him, hey, did you catch this?

And of course, he said no.

But then he started to do the little dance about, well, he meant minimum wage.

I said, no, he didn't.

He didn't.

We already have minimum wage laws.

He meant living wage.

So fast forward to this morning, I opened a Wall Street Journal, which is worth reading on its editorials page sign.

And there's Enigger going, oh,

biden has come out of the closet as a socialist and that's true but here's the real tragic part biden doesn't even know what a living wage means

he doesn't even know it's part of the karl marx program he didn't write that speech he went over it 15 times because and he delivered it pretty well you got to be honest he had good energy didn't look befuddled um

he had good energy i don't know what they did that delivery to what he usually does, stammers around with.

That was light years better.

But he didn't write any of it.

And unlike Trump and Obama, they didn't write either.

But they edited heavily, both of them.

I don't know whether Biden, but I doubt that he's sitting there with the Sharpie editing.

I doubt it.

He pretty much does what he's told to do by Susan Rice.

The New York Times did a whole story on this and said he does edit, and he's looking to go because they had several insiders of the White House insider and they said that he edits and he marks it up where he needs to pause and he looks for because he has a strong rule no acronyms and words that he thinks he might stutter he takes those out uh jill biden does not not him i'm not listen whenever you see anonymous sources new york times forget it no forget it no I mean, yeah.

They want to make them look good.

So they, oh, an insider told me.

I just can't even imagine him with his concentration span being 18 seconds, all right?

Sitting there with an hour and 12-minute speech going over it line by line.

Now, what he does do is read the teleprompter, and he reads it, and he reads it, and he reads it.

And they have built in in the teleprompter, pause,

stop,

smile, grimace,

grimace.

Bill,

let me ask you.

He ad-libbed a few things that apparently were not in the speech.

And one of those was his angry, angry response about who wants to be President Z in China, nobody.

And

he goes from like okay

to

screaming, flaming mad in an instant.

That sounds like me.

Well, look,

I'm not going to analyze his emotional capabilities.

I mean, youths all, he

called some reporter a dog pony soldier or something.

I mean, it's just incoherent gibberish.

And so I don't even bother with that.

What really, really disturbs me, and this is not in the forefront of the American people's mind.

They're calling him a liar and they, oh, he's a liar, he's this, he's that.

He's delusional, Beck.

He lives in a world of delusion.

He thinks he's doing a good job with the economy.

He believes that he is a deficit cost cutter.

He believes this stuff, okay?

And it's so far from reality, but we all know older people

who you go in and then there they are and it's the same syndrome and run for office again this man is going downhill faster than Lindsey Vaughn

you think this is going to get better with him no

I mean no

one's sitting there going this country if this man wins another four-year term

this country is going to be damaged beyond repair.

We can repair it now.

I have about 70 seconds.

I have to ask you about the spat between Donald Trump and

Ron DeSantis.

What is Trump doing?

Stop with this,

you know.

I agree 100%.

I agree.

It's a terrible tactic.

He doesn't need

to.

He doesn't.

Yeah, if he would just

be about discipline with him.

You know that.

I know, I know, I know.

It's emotion and discipline.

He's going to have a tough time, you know, getting that nomination unless he changes course fairly quickly.

Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com.

Make sure you watch his no spin zone every night on billo'reilly.com.

He's also got products and his latest book also available online at billoriley.com.

Bill, thanks.

Talk to you again.

All right, look for that gear, man.

I want to see you wearing that hat.