Best of the Program | Guests: Patricia Adames & Bobby Schindler and James Rollins | 1/28/19

You're listening to the best of the blend back program.

Home Title Lock is something that we have, not because they're sponsors, but because we found out about it and we were like, holy cow.

And all of us signed up independently because one would tell the other.

And then we had them on the show and now they're sponsors and it's Home Title Lock.

And what they do is they protect the title of your home.

It's so easy to take a loan out in your name if you don't own your house and they go out and they take a second mortgage out and you don't know about it.

They get the cash.

They leave.

Then you're stuck with the bill and it's a mess.

Yeah, you start getting, you know, did not pay alerts on your phone.

You start getting

collection notices in your mailbox.

And these are loans you didn't even take out.

Someone's taking them out on your behalf.

You're all of a sudden with your equity.

Yeah, you're all of a sudden a squatter in somebody else's house having to pay for something you never took a loan out on.

It's really crazy.

What you need to do is make sure it hasn't already happened to you.

Make sure that your parents are taken care of.

And go to hometitalock.com.

They're the only people at the vault door where all the titles are kept.

So they are uniquely set up to do just specifically this.

Hometital Lock.com.

That's hometitalock.com.

You get $100 search for free when you sign up.

I'm going to play some audio here of Kamala Harris,

where she said, we are better than this.

This is her first 2020 rally.

20,000 people showed up for her rally.

Here's Kamala Harris.

We are here at this moment in time

because we must answer a fundamental question:

Who are we?

Who are we as Americans?

So let's answer that question to the world

and each other

right here and right now.

America, we are better than this.

20,000 people showing up.

She is going to be a real contender.

I think she is a danger because she is.

Not only is she very, very, very, very left, but she also

is not somebody who looks like, I am Spartacus.

She seems genuine.

Now,

games are part of the overall strategy.

Willie Brown came out.

He was former San Francisco mayor, Willie Brown, known for his outlandish outfits and his extramarital relations.

He penned a letter now for the San Francisco Chronicle.

And what was the title?

Sure.

Sure, I dated Kamala Harris.

So what?

Oh, boy.

Well, for one, you were married at the time, Willie.

But even if we look beyond that,

it is clear that Harris would not be where she is today, a presidential hopeful, without dating a politically powerful man.

Brown wrote, I have been peppered with calls from the national media about my relationship with Kamala Harris, particularly since it became obvious that she was going to run for president.

Most of them I have not returned.

Yes, we dated.

It was more than 20 years ago.

In a 2003 interview, Harris said of Brown, his career is over.

I will be alive and kicking for the next 40 years.

I don't owe him a thing, she said in the San Francisco Weekly.

If there is corruption, it will be prosecuted.

So we're now playing a game between these two, I think.

Brown thought very highly of Harris.

He gave her a brand new BMW.

I mean, that doesn't happen all the time.

No one's ever given me a BMW.

Right.

Well, you don't run in these circles, Stu.

You know, politicians, they've got money coming out their wazoo.

And, you know, when you're a politician, you clearly can buy people BMWs and give them as gifts.

Oh, yeah.

That's what government works all about, Glenn.

He said, yes, I may have influenced her career.

This is in the letter.

I may have influenced her career by appointing her to two state commissions when I was an assembly speaker.

And I certainly helped her in her first race for district attorney in San Francisco.

I also helped in the careers of Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsome and Diane Feinstein Stein and a host of other politicians.

The difference is that Harris is the only one who, after I helped her, sent word that I would be indicted if I so much as jaywalked while she was DA.

That's politics for you.

So,

as much as people think this is bad, I actually think this is good.

I think it's good for this reason.

You want your skeletons out of the closet.

You want them out really early.

And so what did he do?

He said, yeah, I had an affair.

Now, everybody, if you kept that quiet and you kept trying to push that down,

then it's a problem.

Here's Kamala Harris staying out of it.

She's doing a big 20,000-person

event.

At the same time, an old lover, an old mentor, a guy who was in the power structure above her.

Think of this.

How could she be part of a women's movement when this guy helped her?

Well,

hmm.

What did he just say?

I helped a lot of people, but she was the only one that said if I jaywalk, she'd indict me.

So she takes no prisoners, even somebody she was having an affair with, and he was giving her cars.

It gets the secret out.

It will be a day story if that, and she looks tough.

I think this works well for her.

It probably does.

I mean, the story, I mean, it was somewhat public at the time that she was having an affair, but it's been long, you know, it's long forgotten history, and it's kind of being dredged up.

He was 60, and she was 30 at the time.

of the introduction.

Yeah, that's one of the.

The Me Too thing is an interesting angle on this that you bring up because

we talked to a couple people back when the Me Too thing was kind of at its peak.

And women who were saying, you know, yes, it's completely wrong if a man demands sexual favors and tries to, and threatens to ruin her career if she says no.

Similarly,

if a woman is using her sexuality to gain advantages, which by the way does occasionally occur, or not even sexuality, tempting, flirting, you know, dressing in a particular way to try to get an advantage, then that should be something that women are willing to stand up and say, yeah, we should stop doing this as well.

Now, you know, there's no evidence per se that this was a Kamala Harris plan to get her career escalated, but it's hard to imagine that she, you know, I mean, as he points out, he helped her and they were dating, right?

So there was an an advantage she received at some level because of a of a relationship like that and it's it's an interesting dynamic to push against this whole me too thing we would we would say here right that the current narrative is if a man is even

even shows mild interest in in an underling in this sort of way he should be thrown out of society

and now

As one of the people in the relationship is admitting, this basically helped her escalate her career.

So how do we look at that?

Should we look back at, should we dissolve that relationship in our minds and give her no advantage for that whatsoever?

Or should we admit basically what they're admitting?

It's a tough line for someone who's trying to walk the me too and I'm a self-empowered woman of all.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you're supposed to walk that line

if you're that.

Here's how I walk that line.

I don't care.

I don't care.

I mean, I care about the adultery just as much as I care about the adultery with this president and any other president.

But I don't really care.

I don't care that, whoa, what a surprise.

Wait.

Somebody might be giving special favors and BMWs

to an underling that he wants to have a relationship with.

What a surprise.

Yeah, that sucks in politics.

What a surprise.

What a surprise that a woman might want to have a relationship with somebody who can help her career.

What a surprise.

What a surprise if neither of those happened and they were actually deeply, madly in love with each other and they were just having sex and it just happened to work out that she was the best person for the jobs that, you know, the city would try to...

It doesn't matter.

Right.

You, you, however, are not a Democratic primary voter.

For example, another part of this is Kamala Harris is a...

uh prosecutor, right?

And she was known, as you kind of saw with the I'll indict you if you jaywalk type of thing.

She was known as being a relatively, at least for California, a tough prosecutor, put a lot of people, you know,

held them accountable for their actions, as they would say.

Well, you'll notice that that's not exactly a popular position in the Democratic Party, especially in the primary.

I mean, when you put criminals behind bars, they protest.

I mean, they'll run campaigns to try to free people who killed FBI agents.

Like, this is not a crew that's like looking for extra prison time.

And this is one of the things she's going to be, it's a challenge for her in the Democratic Party because she's put prisoners behind bars, and the Democrats don't tend to like that all that much.

However, it's a benefit for her in a general because people who are not won over by her socialism see, oh, at least she's tough on crime.

And that's one of the arguments for her in the general.

And that is the biggest thing.

How will she do in the general?

I don't think Democrats, Democrats, not the diehards, Democrats won't care.

They just want someone to beat Donald Trump.

You have to remember that the left views Donald Trump the way the right viewed Hillary Clinton.

You can't believe she's still around.

You can't believe she's not gotten caught for all those murders that the Clintons did.

Okay.

So every crazy thing you ever heard about Hillary and all the crazy things you heard about Hillary that were true

and false, it's the same thing.

So they're motivated.

They will pick anyone that they think can win in the general election to stop Trump.

And so I don't think they'll care about

her being tough on crime because they will know in the general election, that will help her.

I think she is a very dangerous candidate for Donald Trump.

And we'll get in more to that here in just a second.

And the shutdown, we'll get to that.

It's over.

So what happened?

And what should we do?

The best of the Glen Beck program.

Let me go to the phones and just get a read real quick.

I want to take a lot of people as fast as I possibly can.

Just to get a temperature read from the audience on how you feel about the government shutdown and reopening.

Is it good?

Was it bad?

Your thoughts from Jesse in California first.

Jesse, go ahead.

Yes, why?

Yes.

Win or loss?

Loss.

I wish you would have stayed fast that what he started.

And

push comes to shove.

If after another three weeks of the shutdown, if he would have went to a state of emergency, I would have been okay with that.

Okay, let me go to Eric in South Carolina.

Eric, what are your thoughts?

Overall, I guess a loss on just the whole thing.

But I feel like reopening at work a more presidential and more mature act to do when you're facing off with these Democrats who still not negotiate.

All right.

Mike

in California.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I glanced as Mike in California.

Yes.

Yes, sir.

Listen,

I'm kind of torn.

First of all, Trump makes people show their cards.

The Democrats, they're Democratic.

Geez, I'm sorry.

That's okay.

Are you there?

Oh, oh, and he got frustrated.

Anthony gave up on talking.

Or he may have thought he lost us.

Anthony, go ahead.

Hey, Glenn.

Yeah, I think it's a short-term loss.

However, Trump's three steps ahead of all these professional politicians, and this is a long game for him.

And three weeks from now, I think he's going to offer something different, spin this around and throw it back in their faces.

And I think it becomes a win eventually for him.

He's always been for three years ahead of these guys.

All right.

Greg in Vermont.

Yes.

Well, I think that Trump actually won big time with this by showing that the Dems won't negotiate and that they are actually for

all the criminals coming in and the drugs coming in on the southern border.

Thank you, Greg.

I wonder if it's been seen that way because of the mainstream media, however.

Jeremy, because I see it that way.

Jeremy.

Mr.

Beck.

Yes.

Yes, Mr.

Becks.

Yes, sir.

I would have to say it was a loss for everybody.

I mean, if you're a mid-range on the fence or if you're a Trump supporter, I mean, I think, you know, everybody was just deflated by that.

You know,

you're a worker, you do these things, and, you know, they keep giving this stuff out, and they don't want to do anything to fix it.

And I think that all Americans are frustrated.

They don't believe that government works, that it's more of just all Hollywood.

You know, it's all politics.

It's not really real.

And Trump Fulton, I kind of think, just solidified that for a lot of Americans that voted for him or were on the fence.

If they were, you know, Democrats, by speaking, you know.

Yep.

I think you're right, Jeremy.

i think we all lost democrats and republicans on this and we lost even more faith in our government that anybody is serious about anything other than the next election

this is the best of the glenn beck program

Hi, it's Glenn.

If you're a subscriber to the podcast, can you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes?

If you're not a subscriber, become one today and listen on your own time.

You can subscribe on iTunes.

Thanks.

Patricia Adamas

has

a son, David.

He suffered a stroke

on New Year's Eve.

He was transported to the emergency department.

This is a guy who was just wildly alive.

He was taken to ICU

and he became comatose.

13 days later,

they say he's brain dead, he's unresponsive, and we're going to cut off all of his food and his water and his breathing tube.

I have wrestled with this for a very long time, starting with Terry Shivo.

And

this is wrong to do to people, and we must not go down this road.

Patricia Adamas, the mother, is on the phone with us now.

She's going in in just a few minutes to meet with the hospital and get an update and plead the case to please don't kill her son.

And I so appreciate her being on the phone with us now.

Patricia, how are you?

I'm really.

it's very difficult times.

Patricia, tell us,

they didn't really consult with you guys, did they?

When they started to just cut off his food and water?

That's correct.

They did not.

Tell me what happened

at that time, and is he responsive at all?

Because I understand he, when you're talking to him, when family members talk to him, he is moving.

Yeah, so it was a surprise initially.

The first question, it was a surprise.

We weren't informed that they were going to stop food.

Everything was done, you know, and a discovery of, well, surprise, there's no hydration.

There's no, you know, we're not going to continue.

So it was

a surprise and shock, surprise and shock, which was very difficult, let alone to deal with everything that was happening in the hospital.

And I'm sorry, forgive me, what was your second question?

That it was a surprise and also,

is he responsive?

He is very, very emaciated, dehydrated, very weak and frail.

His bones are protruding from the skin.

So he's not as responsive.

Yesterday and today,

it's very delayed.

But yes, he did respond when we talked.

I would tell him, you know, sweetheart, are you hungry?

Would you like to come to the table to eat?

He'd lift his foot.

My mother would walk in and say, hi, sweetheart, it's grandma, you know.

And he would immediately lift his, you know, his foot.

And he tries so hard.

Just Wednesday,

At 8 o'clock, a friend of his went in and said, hey, David, you know, and he just was shaking his foot.

It was different than the lifting.

It was he was literally shaking his foot, and he lifted it and was shaking it.

And

that's the last of the,

you know, that type of energy.

Now his responses are very faint, very faint.

I'm very concerned because he's really dehydrated.

I've seen the pictures of him just three, four weeks ago, and the picture of him today, he's not the same man.

It's,

I mean, he's a, he looks like he is, you know, as he is starving to death.

What are you, Patricia, what are you asking the hospital today?

And why won't they,

why won't they give you even custody of him?

Well, I have guardianship in a federal court of law.

We're Native American.

But what I'm asking today and being very adamant in asking in continuum is for my my son to

be provided intravenous hydrate intravenous hydration and then at some point nutrition and then the thyroid that is very essential to his

stability and

recovery you know because the idea is

the hospital's intent or alleged or stated intent is to help us transfer him to receive continued services, which would be New Jersey or some other place that would take him

and but you don't do that intentionally and not provide the vital sustenance to get him there so it's it's not so it's almost a default it's not it's not very humane and I don't understand it what also the other thing I'm asking for is to be properly informed you know to be given the dignity and the respect without

that, you know, we're going to remove the ventilator at any minute and, you know, things like that.

We're going to take, this is the last thing he has sustaining, and we're going to take that.

You know,

it's not humane to live or to feel that there is the spirit of recovery or any sense of stability for my son or the underlying intent that is not in alignment with the

alleged care of the hospital.

So we're asking that

immediately the hydration and the nutrition continue, that my son be allowed dignity, respect, and the care

to be sustained until you know the the statements of the hospital to transfer him to a long-term care facility.

This is to allow me

to be informed.

This is St.

Joseph's hospital.

So this is a Catholic hospital.

You would think that life would be paramount to them.

And he could have been transferred, but now he is so weak from starving him to death that

the idea of transferring him to a place for

longer care

is

probably not an option today.

Patricia, I know you need to get to the hospital and we're praying for your son.

And I have Bobby Schindler on the phone.

Thank you

and Godspeed and we'll check in again to find out what's happening.

We're going to go to Bobby Schindler, who is Terry Shivo's brother.

And Bobby and I became friends, if you're new to the show,

over his sister.

I was on the wrong side of it for a while.

And then I didn't do the easy thing.

I did the hard thing.

And I actually thought about it, prayed about it, read about it, and did soul searching.

And we do not

in human society, since when do we consider

food

an extraordinary measure?

We feed our babies.

We give water to our babies.

We give water to our dogs.

You go to jail if you don't give water to your dog.

You go to jail if you leave your dog in a hot car.

What are we doing to people?

And this is a bright line that we must all draw.

And Bobby and I will talk about that in one minute.

Bobby Schindler, president of Terry Shivo Life and Hope Network,

one of the great American heroes of our time, he and his family, and what they have done because of his sister, Terry Shaivo.

I talked to Bobby yesterday.

We exchanged emails.

He was on his way to Arizona, and I had just heard about it.

And so we connected.

And

Bobby, what do we need to do?

How can we help?

Well, Glenn, I got to tell you, it seems to me we've become desensitized to what's going on in this hospital.

I went to visit David, and when I saw him, I had saw videos of him on a Facebook post that Patricia had produced.

And

it is gut-wrenching to see this young man who really hasn't given an opportunity to see if in fact he is able to recover,

to see him starving and dehydrating to death like this.

It just

brought back terrible memories.

And also the fact, Glenn, this is happening every single day across countless health care facilities in our country.

And where is the outrage?

Where are people supporting this woman's efforts to try and stop this from happening?

I don't understand the mindset or the mentality of why the hospital is not giving this young man the opportunity.

to respond to treatment.

What is the rush?

I mean, we're fighting for time here, Glenn.

We're not doctors.

I don't know his long-term prognosis, but to cut off treatment in such a short period of time to me is just,

it's terrible.

Bobby,

he has two young daughters.

And if you see the pictures of him three weeks ago, he was a vibrant guy.

You know, he was, I mean, the pictures I've seen of him, he was alive and fit.

And

and then three weeks later, he looks like

he's in Ethiopia

and one of the starving victims.

And he is, except it's in an American hospital.

What does...

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

No, no.

I just urge people to go to

Facebook.

You can go to our Life and Hope Network, Terry Shava, Life and Hope Network Facebook page and watch the videos that Patricia's making of her son and to see his condition.

The brain is very complex, Glenn.

We have stories after stories of people that just need time for the brain to recover.

But when you cut off his nourishment and his hydration from within days of his initial accident,

you're doing exactly what the brain doesn't need.

His brain,

he's compromised now.

Until he gets nutrition and hydration, he's not going to have the opportunity for the brain to try and recover.

And that's what we're fighting for now, to treat it so he gets the strength so we can, in fact, try and transform out of that facility.

And the fact that it's a Catholic facility doing this is extremely troubling.

I don't even know, Glenn, if they tried to wean him off the ventilator to see if he would have the capability of breathing on his own.

Because, of course, if he was able to breathe on his own, then

they would have...

Yeah, they couldn't stop and dehydrate him to death.

But I think they're using the ventilator as a reason to stop his food and hydration why

Bobby why would they do that

well

you know I think Glenn I don't think

it's difficult to see what's happening here I think this is a cost issue if they look at someone like like David who's going to need long-term cost well it's a lot more affordable to stop treatment

sooner rather than later to save the hospital what could be long-term cost and I don't know what other reason they come to these decisions so quickly.

As I keep saying over and over again, Glenn,

this boy needs an opportunity to recover.

And the fact that they cut off nutrition so quickly, it just,

I don't understand it.

And we, Glenn, we deal with so many cases like this today.

We've been doing this for 14 years.

I've lost count of the cases of families that call us that are going through the same type of situation.

It's heartbreaking.

Is it worse since you fought for your sister?

Oh, absolutely.

There's no doubt with the calls that we're getting, Glenn.

And who knows

how frequently this is happening across our health care system.

Look, I'm not trying to paint a picture of our health care facilities.

I mean, we deal with wonderful facilities and doctors and nurses every day.

And I don't know that it's the ethics of the doctors that are pushing this, Glenn.

I think it's more coming from administrators and insurance companies that do not want to provide the resources needed to help these people when they're faced with these types of traumatic brain injuries and serious brain injuries.

When they see the long-term care potential and the fact that they can save a lot of money

by

stopping care,

I think that's perhaps what's driving these administrators

to stop treatment much, much too quick.

So you have people now, Bobby, across the nation.

We're running out of time for

this guy.

He's, I mean,

you saw him.

He could die tomorrow, could die today.

and he needs to have

liquid and he needs to

have hydration and then

some nourishment to be able to get his strength back.

People who are listening now, what do they do?

Well, as I said, I would urge them to go to Facebook.

I would urge them to contact the bishop of diocese, the diocese of Tucson.

This is a Catholic-run hospital.

I don't know that it's

a diocese hospital.

I don't know if it's a hospital operated by the diocese.

Nonetheless, I think the bishop would have authority to intervene to at least plead with this hospital to provide this young man care until we find a facility that would be able to trans so we could transfer him to a facility that would be willing to treat him.

It's very difficult to do that, but we're trying and we're hopeful that we can find one.

If there's a facility out there, perhaps that's listening, someone that works for a facility that might be willing to contact Patricia

or the hospital to see if, in fact, they would accept him on transfer.

I mean, that would be very helpful.

I don't know if it's a good idea, Glenn, to bombard the hospital with phone calls at this point.

I don't know if that would be helpful, but it would be helpful to try and plead with the bishop, Bishop Weisenberger, I believe his name is, here in Tucson, to intervene.

Do you happen to know how you'd contact him?

Do you have a number or anything?

I don't have in front of me, but it's.

Okay, I'll tweet it or Facebook, and I'll get it in a few minutes.

Bishop Weisenberger is his name.

It's in the Diocese of Tucson.

Yeah, and we're just asking for time, Glenn.

I mean, it's been less than a month that this happens to this young man.

And what is the rush to end his life and to starve and de-hikate him to death without giving him the opportunity?

We're fighting for time.

And I think that is the least that this hospital and these administrators can give this young man,

particularly with the mother saying how responsive he was, at least initially.

I mean, it's getting harder for him every day because he's being compromised by a lack of food and

hydration.

Correct.

Bobby, I don't know how you do it all the time.

I don't know how you just relive your worst part of your life with your sister,

but you have dedicated your life to this, and you're a hero.

You're a modern-day hero.

And

I'm honored to know you.

And just keep us informed and tell us what we can do to help.

Thanks, Grant.

Thanks for covering this.

God bless you.

I really appreciate it.

Bobby Schindler from the Terry Shivo Life and Hope Network.

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

If you are a fan of the Sigma Force series as I am, you will be thrilled to know that James Rollins is on with us now.

He has a new novel out.

It's called Crucible.

It is a thriller, and it's about witchcraft, and yet it's not about witchcraft.

No, I love to mix a little bit of history and a bit of science.

So this starts way back during the Spanish Inquisition when there was a sort of a, you talked a little bit about how tech seems to impact daily life, and that's what happened in the past.

Prior to the 1400s, you know, there was no great persecution of witches.

The Catholic Church seemed to be okay with witches.

But about the mid-1400s, there was a volume that was produced called the Malleus Malefarcum, or the Hammer of Witches.

It was produced by a priest in 1487.

This volume was a witch hunter's Bible.

It's going to tell you how to find a witch, torture a witch, persecute a witch.

Basically, fun reading.

Now, this book would have been lost for obscurity, but for one fact.

that it came out at the same time of Gutenberg's printing press.

So it was one of the first mass-produced books.

It was distributed across Europe, eventually over to the Americas.

And it was that one volume that's considered to be the sort of the match, the spark that ignited the great witch purges that swept Europe for 400 centuries, I mean, 400 years, and then eventually spread to Salem here in the States.

So, you know, when it comes to tech, you know, I'm sure when the Gutenberg printing press, everybody was going, oh, it'll bring the world closer together.

Knowledge will become, you know, a greater, you know.

boon to humanity.

And what did they use it for?

Burn all witches.

Yeah.

And look at the internet today.

When it first came out, everybody says, oh, it'll bring people closer together.

It'll

expand knowledge.

It'll be a great boon to mankind.

And we really are.

Burn those witches.

We're still burning those witches at this point.

So that's one of the

crux of the story: is how

tech sometimes sounds good.

And the tech in this book deals with artificial intelligence and as you mentioned with the 5G and where we're headed right now in the tech world and how it sounds good on paper.

But.

So tell me how

because I am, I've been a fan of yours for a very long time, as you know.

Thank you.

And

I think storytellers like you are so important

because

people don't, you know, I could say, hey, I'm going to spend the next week talking about tech and how it's going to change the world.

Nobody really wants to hear it.

And at this point, I don't think the average American understands.

They don't believe.

They've been promised flying cars.

So when they hear.

I'm still waiting for mine.

I know.

So when you hear five to ten years from now, the world is going to be completely different, they put that in the flying car category.

Right.

And this time, it's different.

So tell me the story that you created around the warning that people like Elon Musk have been giving.

Right.

So it deals with a coming crisis, one that the physicist Stephen Hawking says is going to lead to theoretically the end of human civilization.

Elon Musk says it's going to lead to World War III.

Vladimir Putin says whoever controls this tech will control the world.

And that tech is artificial intelligence.

It's the creation of the first sort of true human-like AI.

Now, that sounds something like science fiction.

You know, nowhere in my book do I have Arnold Schwarzenegger going into the past and saving Sarah Connors.

Right.

You know, this is this is what's ripped from, you know, I call these AI researchers.

I talked to AI researchers for this novel.

And I posed a question to all of them.

Well, you know, it's scaring Hawking and Musk.

When's When's it going to happen?

And they would have said, you know, sometime between, like you said,

five to 15 years, which again,

you can put rose of glass and go, well, that, you know, I'm not going to worry about that today.

That's down the line.

Except that two of the researchers,

one on the West Coast and one in the Midwest, both of them told me, oh, no, Jim, it's already here.

You know, we've got our ear to the third rail of AI research and we hear what's rumbling.

And it would only rumble in that way if somebody was not already experimenting with AI tech that's reached that level of human self-awareness and human level of intelligence.

What are some rumbles that they hear?

Did they say?

Well, in the book, there's some proof in the book that I had to change some names to avoid slander, but some of the proof is in the book.

But they showed me the proof, and it was convincing that there is evidence at this point that some people are experimenting because of certain types of tech that was being experimented on in different segments.

Because when you're talking about AI tech, it's very subdivided.

Everybody's in their own little circle doing one part of it.

And so some of the research going in certain parts indicate that somebody is already testing that, a human level of AI tech.

So, if we're not, if they're not right,

we're still within the next

five to 15 years of facing this.

We're going to face something we've never faced before, which is an intelligence we're sharing this planet with that we've never seen before.

And people don't understand.

People think, oh, it will be friendly to human, or we can keep it in a cage.

It's going to be thinking so fast.

It will be like a three-year-old trying to block Einstein from leaving a room.

Exactly.

It's not going to happen.

And so they think we can keep it in a cage or it will be friendly.

We have to understand this truly is an alien life form.

So we have no, we're already learning this through things like Go.

It doesn't think like us.

No.

So we can't predict it at all.

I mean, the founder of Skype said that when this happens, we're talking about a consciousness that, A, we can't control.

and that we can't comprehend.

And we're not going to be able to control it.

I know from you've done a lot of research on AI yourself.

You know about the AI box experiment where they put an AI researcher in a room, in a virtual locked-up chat room, and said, Hey, you know, I'll give you a cash prize if you keep me in this chat room.

Well, the majority of them failed.

He escaped every single time.

That was just a human level of

intelligence.

And his escapes because

when AI has access to all information and is credible, saying, Look, I know your mom has cancer.

I know.

And I'm telling you, I can save her.

I know what kind of cancer it is.

I have the solution.

Humans immediately go, man, you know what?

It's too good.

Yes, I'm going to release you.

I mean, for the cause of cancer, I'm going to release.

It gets out every single time.

And that's not with a superior intelligence.

That's just man against man.

And we're already at the point where...

AI scientists will admit they do not know how the current level of AI thinks.

Even the narrow AI that we have in our pocket with Siri or or our countertop with Alexa, when you're talking about the advanced AI, you know, you put data in and an inference or an answer comes out the other end.

They do not know how A went to B.

They cannot tell you how the AI, the thought process of the AI went through to come to that conclusion.

It's called an algorithmic black box.

DARPA just spent $6.5 million over at Oregon University to try to shine a light a little bit, to try to figure out how these things are thinking.

So it's totally incomprehensible, as the founder of Skype said.

We can't control it.

It's, you know, there's two camps.

There's a Ray Kurzweil camp that thinks, again, great boon for humanity.

It will bring us closer.

Yay.

I'm just talking to him.

Did you talk to Ray?

No, I wasn't able to speak to Ray.

No.

But, you know, I think the camp is going to be, you know, burn all witches.

You know, it's going to be something bad.

I think so, too.

I've talked to Ray a couple of times, and he is,

well, A, he doesn't believe in God, so he doesn't believe in a soul.

So he believes that we are just an algorithm.

You know what I mean?

We're just a collection of synopsis that happen so I can download you and the human body is nothing.

It's just the way you think.

And that's, I just don't believe that at all.

And so that gives me a little bit of fear because he's just, he looks at life completely, almost like an alien in some ways.

And he is, too many of his answers to me have been,

well,

it just won't happen that way.

Well,

I had 22 AI researchers that were willing to talk to me, either via phone or via email.

None of them were on the Ray Kurzweil side.

They were all very scared of what's going on in this tech because of the fact that

if whoever controls this tech controls the world, as Vladimir Putin has stated, everybody's after it.

Every country is pursuing it.

Every corporation is pursuing it.

And they're pursuing it without any very little safeguards.

They just want to be the first one to grab that gold ring.

So I question, well, you know, is there any path out of this?

They said, well, there's a small camp, you know, where there's 99 researchers just pursuing hell-bent to get to that tech first.

There's a small percentage of them that are pursuing the harder path, more expensive path, unfortunately, which is to try to create the first friendly AI, an AI that's sympathetic, that's empathetic to us, because we may need eventually somebody in our back pocket like an AI that likes us, that when a malignant AI arises, which it will.

we have somebody to be our champion.

So I thought, well, how do you do that?

How do you have a moral compass in a computer?

And they told me some of the ways that

are being done.

So I ended up putting that in the book.

Okay, so let's talk about that.

Let's talk about the story and the book.

We're going to take one minute break and then back with James Rollins.

The name of the book is Crucible.

Really important to read.

If you want to see over the horizon, see the things we should be talking about and reading about and thinking about,

read this book, Crucible by James Rollins.

So, James, when you start writing a book like this, you do the research.

And is this something that you are,

is this something that you are really passionate about?

Do you write stories that you're like, I think this is a real concern?

Well, as a writer, I'm always looking for that story where, you know,

where's science headed?

What's around the horizon?

I'm looking for the stories that scare me.

And me as a writer, it's one way of me of maybe

assuaging some of that fear, you know, put it on paper, get it out of my head.

Right.

But also gives me an opportunity because I have a lot of contacts in DARPA and various institutes to find out, you know, what's, you know, let's pull aside the curtain a little bit.

You know, at the end of my book, I have a what's true, what's not section where I tell you exactly where all this came from.

And if you want, leave you some breadcrumbs to follow, if you want to.

Because this, uh, when I got terrified after talking to these AI techs, they were not reassuring at all about where we're headed.

Uh, they're scared, and they scared the bejesus out of me.

Yeah, um, so I knew I wanted to write that novel, but as a cautionary tale, yes, it's a roller coaster ride.

I'm gonna, I mean, I burned most of Paris down.

I fired firefights throughout the day.

Well, they're already hurry because they're already doing exactly.

I had to write this book fast before that happened.

And so I figured after hearing, especially the gentleman that the two gentlemen that said that were already there, is I better write this now because in three years I might not be able to write this.

Back three books ago, I wrote a book that dealt with genetically engineering humans.

And I asked my little team of scientists that were willing to talk to me and said, well, who would genetically alter embryos?

Who would try to forever change the inheritable gene pool of humanity?

And they were all like the Chinese.

So I wrote that book three years ago about the Chinese altering human babies.

They're doing it.

And then what happened?

Yeah.

So my fear is that I've written this book today.

You know, what's it going to look like in three years?

We'll be all questioning what it means to share this planet with this alien intelligence.

How did you develop the

and why?

It's almost a Dan Brown kind of approach, except Dan Brown kind of takes history and leads you down this path where it is an ancient secret

and it's the Catholic Church and yada yada.

Why did you select the witches?

Is it just because of that?

And how did you weave that story in?

Well, it starts in the past, again, just

the beginning of this book, there's one of the characters, Monk, is flipping a coin in the air.

And he's got a prosthetic that's so sensitive, he's able to predict how that coin will land.

He does it basically to cheap...

drinks out of a bar.

So that's what tech is used for for him.

And so in this book, I was trying to shine a light on the fact that, you know, right now there's a deep trench between science and religion.

But in the past, it was not that way.

And sort of a theme of a lot of my novels is trying to blur that line between science and religion, is looking for that common ground.

You know, this...

I could, after talking to these AI researchers, I probably could have written a non-fiction book about AI, but I want to do a fiction book because it allows me to explore a lot of the philosophical questions of what's coming up.

You know, if we do create this alien intelligence, what does that mean?

Does it have a soul?

Do we have a responsibility to that?

Can we unplug it if it's actually self-aware?

So those are the things I can explore in a novel that I can't explore in a non-fiction text.

So I said to, I met with an ethicist

who was talking about how AI robotics could be used to

let...

you know, child predators have their way with these robots and they'd like to study and see if it's...

And I said...

That's creepy.

Very creepy.

And I said,

well um

hang on when we hit consciousness and we will yep um you are the worst kind of slave owner you are you've made something and it's your creation you want to turn ai against you

use it for those kinds of things and she'd never even thought of it hadn't even occurred to her that way because people are not thinking about something that's going to say, I'm alive.

Yep.

And how do you prove that it's not?

Well, in this book, I introduce a point of view character.

It's a rudimentary AI named Eve that was created by a young researcher on the run with her tech.

And throughout the course of the novel,

we see her trying to sculpt Eve, trying to raise Eve to become something like that's going to be a sympathetic, empathetic AI.

And I'm using techniques I learned from IBM and from some of the other researchers,

how they were recommending recommending to sculpt this.

So I did that in the book.

But

it's like raising a child, ultimately.

The question becomes when it comes to creating AI, nature versus nurture.

How much of who we are is our genetic code?

How much of who we are is the way we're raised.

And it's going to be the same with AI.

There's a certain amount of tech, amount of code you can put into an AI to help maybe lean it towards being

empathetic and sympathetic, but also it's going to be the way you raise it.

If

you have this immature AI that's abused, it's going to go one track.

If you treat it in a certain manner, then maybe we can avoid the worst catastrophe by having an AI that's going to help us.

Or if you even treat it and you teach it to kill.

I mean, the idea that we are putting AI in drones,

that we are putting them, we want to put them in robots

for

some sort of

drone

war

is terrifying.

Yeah, right now there's a big philosophical question in the military about who should give the kill order.

Should it, you know, because right now we do have drones that are very much driven by AI.

But right now, we still have the kill order coming from a human saying, okay, now shoot it.

They're willing to give that up.

They're willing to give the kill order control over to the AI.

That's insane.

That's a worrisome moment in history.

It's really, really insane.

What was the thing

in doing the the research that scared you the most?

What scared me the most was the fact that we're already seeing AI that are losing control and surprising their creators.

That was what startled me the most.

We're finding at the fringes where they're really experimenting at the edges like alpha go, alpha go zero.

These computers are, these AIs are surprising their creators.

To quote one of the researchers, they're doing unexpected things.

Did you see the story about Microsoft?

They shut the program down.

They had two programs talking to each other and writing.

And

they were speaking in a secret language.

Yes.

And within just a few minutes, they developed their own language and no researcher understood what they were even talking about.

And when the researchers asked the AI, can you please translate your conversation for us?

They said no.

They refused to translate it.

So that's just think about that right there.

And Microsoft stopped it and they put a press release out.

No, it's just because it had run its course.

no, I did.

Really?

Really?

What scientist

isn't interested in finding out more about a new language?

You shut that down because it scared the hell out of you.

Exactly.

James, as always, good to have you on.

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

The Bill of Rights has never been more important than it will be in the next five years.

You have certain inalienable rights.

For instance, right now, the Arkansas House of Representatives is voting to ban forced microchipping of workers.

Now,

I want you to think about that.

They had to have a bill

and write a law that would ban employers from requiring an implant as a condition of employment.

It would only allow people to be microchipped if they give written consent and the employers would be responsible for the cost of implanting and removing the chip.

A Wisconsin company did this in 2017.

They microchipped employees that agreed to have the chip implanted.

And it allowed people to open doors and buy snacks and everything else.

The legislation

is just in anticipation of companies doing this.

Now, we know that the Chinese are already doing this,

and it is terrifying.

You have to know that we are in

a new era, and it is called surveillance capitalism.

And I would call it everything in 1984, the book 1984.

Surveillance capitalism is your life is going to be made so easy because everything you do will be surveilled.

And everything will be running on the back of this 5G network and eventually AI.

Once AI has access to all phone calls, you worry about the NSA?

There's not enough time to listen to all phone calls and read all text and every keystroke.

But the NSA saves it.

But with AI and especially with

quantum computing, which is also around the corner, it can calculate and listen and do everything that man cannot do.

The reason why I bring this up is because we have to A educate ourselves on this, and I know it sounds like flying cars, but please hear me.

This is coming.

The world will be completely different by 2025.

Completely different by 2025.

As different as America has seen changes, as different as we are from the year 2000 to the year 2019,

that kind of change at bare minimum will be felt in the next five to six years.

So please don't dismiss this.

But what we can concentrate on right now is a fight for life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So your own kind of chart your own course.

Get out of the thumb of someone else.

That's your pursuit of happiness.

We're going to show you tonight a way to do that.

And tonight we're going to show you how we could save the government and get out of debt, immediately erase the national deficit.

And we can do that just by privatizing some of the biggest agencies like TSA.

And we'll take you through that tonight.

We should not be having this discussion of

the shutdown.

We should be talking about how can we change things to match tomorrow.

So that's tonight.

Liberty.

We need to be able to talk about

the right to be able to speak and to think and to have your voice heard.

This is something we're going to cover tomorrow.

Tomorrow, Blaze Media and Blaze TV Live

is going to do a two-hour,

no-commercial broadcast.

It will not be on television.

You will only be able to get it by, I think, our Facebook page and maybe YouTube.

I'm not sure.

But it will also be on Blaze TV where you will get everything.

And we invite you to subscribe now.

What we're doing is Media Meltdown.

This is the beginning, I hope, of something that is an ongoing conversation.

It will be between you and I.

Tomorrow we're bringing in all of the big hosts that can come in, and we're checking in with others.

But we have 30 different hosts,

and we're going to have the conversation about the media and where it is today,

and how, if they are willing to make things up like they did last week and willing to destroy a kid when the evidence of video shows none of that is true, what won't they do

in 2020?

If

the media decides that they have to be the fact-checker for everyone, and they convince Facebook and Microsoft and Google that they're going to be the ones that provide the blue or green check mark.

How do they decide that?

I can't tell you that CNN is a wholly unreliable source.

I can tell you that CNN has an agenda on this or that, and they see things differently.

And at times, they are wholly inaccurate and intentionally like they were last week.

But sometimes they get it right.

So should we, if we were the ones in charge, should we ban CNN or say that they're an awful

news outlet?

Or should we say, be cautious?

Be cautious, be aware.

And that's what should be said for the right and the left.

But it shouldn't be something new.

Be cautious.

When Microsoft came out with their red shield last week and they put the blaze

under a red shield saying,

we need to protect you from this because we're not sure how accurate they are,

I take that as a badge of honor.

It means that I don't agree with Microsoft.

I don't agree with the mainstream media.

I won't feed that to you.

I'm an independent thinker, and I don't agree with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Amen.

Thank you.

I'd like that red shield from you, please, Microsoft.

Unfortunately, what that shield will do eventually, the algorithms will start suppressing voices like mine and like yours.

So what do we do?

That's the subject tomorrow as we begin this national conversation and we believe in it so much, no commercials.

It's raw, and you can find it tomorrow at blazetv.com/slash Beck.

You'll also be able to find it on our Facebook page.

It starts 6 p.m.

Eastern.

Please, please, if you want to be a part of the solution, make sure you join us tomorrow.

And the last one is life: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We are so devaluing life right now that people actually cheered

for the passing of a partial birth abortion law.

People are actually cheering, cheering when people say, my first abortion was really my best.

We've changed as people.

We're going to be debating soon, is AI life?

Is that alive?

I can't tell the difference between something alive

and it.

Did we just create life?

We are going to be worried about AI life

and our life under AI, but AI will first learn what life is worth from us.

And if we are killing people like we are,

As we told you today, there is a Native American, and I only point out that he's Native American because last week everybody on the left cared about Native Americans.

He's a father of two.

He had a stroke on New Year's Eve.

A week ago,

after two weeks, his family is there.

He's responding with hand signals and moving his feet and everything else.

The hospital declares him brain dead and no hope.

And so they leave the ventilator tube in,

and then they starve him and dehydrate him.

He is now, I think, on day 14 of no fluids and no food, and

he's starving to death.

Is this who we are?

I posted how you could help on my Facebook and Twitter, so you can go there.

You can find his GoFundMe page to help pay for the bills, because that's what really everybody's worried about.

They don't care about life.

They care about how much is this going to cost.

This family is being traumatized and our culture is being lost.

Our culture that believes in the dignity of life is being lost.

And things are only going to be more confusing from here.

I feel

great urgency

to tell you,

please

get out of politics and start talking about the politics of meaning and things that will make a difference.

Because I think we're running out of time, both Democrats and Republicans.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.