Ali Stuckey (6:38)

Is in a lot of trouble, in shambles right now. Yeah, for people, just as a reminder, esg, environmental, social, governance. And so you can actually see this. We're talking about this as if this is some like dark underbelly of corporate America. But they're really open about it. I mean, I have friends that work for big accounting firms, these major corporations, and they're very open. They'll get an email about ESG to make sure that they attend this training to help keep up the ESG scores. And you can even read on websites of like hotel chains, for example. Here's what we're doing to make sure that we are environmentally conscious, that we are, you know, socially progressive, and that we're helping with governance and championing democracy. And all of these, of course, are euphemisms for progressive causes like transing kids. I mean, that's just what it is. And they might be using some code words so that they're not saying that explicitly on their site, but that's what we're talking about. And the reason they're doing that, as you stated, is that companies, huge companies with trillions of dollars like BlackRock and Vanguard, they are shareholders in these companies like Target and like these other major corporations, so that these companies are more beholden to the values of BlackRock, an entity like that, than they are to you or me. And yet we've talked about before that even before Trump won, it did seem like some companies were at least austere, ostensibly switching it up. For example, it seemed that even last June while Biden was still president, that Pride Month wasn't as aggressive at Target. Some people even said that it was more focused on fourth of July than Pride Month, which is quite the switch for Target. And so it does seem like some of these companies and some of their super bowl ads even were Trying to appeal to middle America. Tell me how much you think that reflects. Just kind of trying to save face and just putting up a facade of being pro America and even kind of conservative coded. Or how much you think it is actually an indicator of some disbanding of power at the WTF in Davos. I hope all of that made sense.

Justin Haskins (8:58)

Yeah, yeah, no, that makes perfect sense. I would say prior to the Trump administration, prior to Donald Trump winning the election in November, I would have said that a lot of it was posturing with, maybe they were trying to be a little bit more quiet about the sort of great reset transition to this ESG, left wing utopian world. But I think after Donald Trump won, I think a lot of people on the left, elites in particular in these big institutions, realized that their agenda was on the ballot, very clearly on the ballot, and had been totally and completely rejected. That voters went out and elected a guy who had been subject to more attacks than any person who's ever run for office, ever. We're talking about a guy who was impeached twice. He was convicted of numerous felonies. They did everything they accused him of, insurrection and treason and all kinds of other crazy things. He was almost killed. He was shot in the head and still was elected. And I think that a lot of people on the left, that was a wake up call for a lot of these big corporations, the leaders of these companies, who I don't think were necessarily left wing people per se, but were going in that direction. Some of them were, but I think a lot of them are going in that direction because that's where the money was going. They wanted to be in the good graces of government. They thought that this was the direction that the world was moving in in the west. And they wanted to be a part of it because there's a lot of money tied up in it and because they wanna be in positions of power and influence. And when Donald Trump won, I think they realized, wow, this is not, this has just been totally rejected. This is not what people want. And I do think there has been some real changes that have occurred. And I give you one example of it is banks for the past year to two years have been talking about trying to be, you know, they're open for everybody and they're not really agenda driven. And despite all the things they've done in the past, that's not really who they are. But we didn't see a lot of policy changes. We saw them pulling out of international associations that were promoting ESG and things like that at the United nations and other places. But we didn't actually see a lot of policy changes. Well, in recent months we've seen actual policy changes implemented at some of the major banks like JPMorgan Chase, for example, where they said our official policy is we are not going to base our decisions on things like ESG criteria. That's not how we're going. We're not going to screen people out that way. And I think that's a direct reaction to what happened in the election and fear that if they don't go along with it, then the Trump administration is going to put regulations in place that force them to go in that direction anyway. And so elections have consequences. And I think one of the big consequences from this past election was I think a lot of elites realized that their agenda had been completely rejected by voters and that if they want to continue to exist and be successful, they are going to have to move at least a little bit back to the center. They can't continue on with this far left wing agenda and openly trying to, you know, engage in social engineering and all of that stuff because it's just not what Donald Trump and his administration want. It's not what voters want. It's already been rejected by huge swaths of consumers. And so I think we've started to see that. I think we're going to see more of that things that blackrock have put out. For example, they're backing way off on esg. There's a lot of companies that are doing this and some of that's driven by the policies that we talked about earlier from the state level and at the federal level. But other things, I think it's just a they see the writing on the wall. They know that their ideology is not the ideology in favor and they're changing because they want to make money.

Ali Stuckey (12:58)

Quick pause from that conversation to tell you about We Heart Nutrition. Love We Heart Nutrition. I know I talk about it all the time because I use this product every day. I use their magnesium. I am still on their postnatal vitamin which works really well for me. I take their Omega 3s, I take their iron supplement and I'm also taking their new Wholesome Balance product which is great for women's hormones. It's filled with clinically backed ingredients that help us balance our hormones. So saffron, ginger, curcumin, ki B vitamins. And it's great for women no matter what life stage you're in, whether you're a teen, whether you are postpartum or whether you are going through perimenopause or menopause. It just gives your body the nutrients and the balance that it needs. I think it's made a difference for me. I think that We Heart Nutrition has made an overall super positive difference in my health, my hair, skin and nails, even my immune system. Plus, this is a Christian family owned company that is just really great to support. You'll be able to tell the difference when you start taking We Heart Nutrition. Go to We HeartNutrition.com use code ALLY. You'll get 20% off your order. We Heart Nutrition.com code ALLY. I think about someone like George Soros, obviously, as you said, these executives are probably not really ideologically progressive. Maybe they're socially liberal because that's just the default, but they probably don't have a bunch of like strongly held convictions. They see green, they want more money. As you said, there's a lot of money tied up into this. But then there are some ideological billionaires like George Soros. I mean, it's obvious which direction he wants the country to go based on the politicians and the organizations that he is funding. I can't imagine, I mean, and Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and all these people. I mean, there are so many that I could list. I can't imagine that those people are saying our progressive ideology isn't really popular. Let's back off and switch gears. I imagine that people like George Soros and all of his subsidiaries are saying, okay, they got this one, just wait, we've, we've got a plan up our sleeve. What do you think is going on behind the scenes and places like that, or, you know, organizations like Open Society or even in Silicon Valley.

Justin Haskins (15:22)

Right? Yeah. Well, I think that there is, I think there's no question whatsoever that the strategy is for a lot of these big institutions and left wing groups, like you said, the Open Societies foundation, that's George Soros Group and others to ride this out, you know, undermine Trump under, you know, play politics like they always do, but to ride this out until we get to the next stage of things. They already have Europe totally in their control and Europe has been moving more to the right, but they're still dominated by left wing politics. And so they've already got that in the bag. They need America to come along. In order for them to really fully implement the agenda that they have for the Western world, they have to have America. George Soros has said this over and over and over again, that he's going back 20, 30 years, that America is the thorn that's always in their side that's always causing problems. It's the fly in the ointment. It's not allowing this elite progressive agenda to move forward. And so they have to ride this out. But while they're riding it out and they're sort of forced into these positions that are a little bit more moderate than what they would like, I think that the next big movement for them, the pieces that they're putting into place right now, all have to do with emerging technologies. I think that the developments that we're seeing with artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies related to artificial intelligence, that is the future. I think that the Klaus Schwab's of the world have been saying this for a very long time. If people have been paying attention, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison and a whole bunch of other billionaires that are on the left been saying this for a very long time. And I think the technology has finally reached a level and it's going to advance even more in the next five to 10 years where this really is the priority for people on the left. And I think that they're willing to lose some of the other battles so that they can focus on this. Because I think that if you can design emerging technologies like artificial intelligence so that it promotes left wing values, ESG type values, then you're going to transform the world by default. Regardless of what the other laws are, regardless of the other battles you may win or lose, regardless of who's in the White House, because of how important emerging technologies and artificial intelligence is going to be over the, really the remainder of the century. If you can control that, you can control all of society. And this is a lesson that they learned from the Internet age and the advent of the Internet. The left, I think the biggest mistake that they made over the past 30 or 40 years, and the left has been a lot better at social engineering and moving the ball forward than the right has been. I think we all can acknowledge that. But the biggest mistake they made was when the Internet first came out and became widely available in the public. They didn't regulate it so that it had their values embedded within it, so that there were rules to it. And then once the Internet became really popular and it was in everybody's home, the genie was out of the bottle. People loved the freedom that they had on the Internet and they didn't want to regulate it. And it became so wildly unpopular. And they tried more recently to do this with social media companies and things like that. And people have rejected it. That's part of voting For Donald Trump is rejecting censorship on the Internet and social media. Elon Musk and all of that has been a huge part of that story. Right. But if they could go back in time to before the Internet was really popular and they could write rules for it into law so that, that left wing values were the rules of the Internet, they would absolutely go back in time and do that. I think we all know that they've been trying to do it ever since now. They've, they learned that, that lesson the hard way and now they're designing artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies so that in the future that's just going to be the way AI always is right from the very start. I believe that's what's going on right now. I think the evidence is overwhelming and I think that's the focus for a lot of these, these elites at major institutions, financial firms, et cetera.

Ali Stuckey (19:42)

Yeah, gosh, I've got so many questions within that. But first, talking kind of like about the shift even in these companies like X and like Meta, after Donald Trump won, I saw a big difference in how my Instagram account was handled. We actually for the first time ever had a representative from Meta reach out to us and ask just to have an introductory conversation. Had and very friendly. I had never had that before. So there's a shift going on there. And yet at the same time there is this advent of AI under Meta, under Google, under X that I can tell in my interaction with that AI is not supportive of my views because I literally had to argue with Grok until he would finally admit that Islam, according to the numbers, is responsible for the most terrorist attacks, religiously motivated terrorist attacks. And it's kind of crazy how human like it is because you'll argue and it'll say, okay, that's a fair point. I could see. I, I see your perspective now and I apologize for not saying that. I've seen other people do the same thing with chat GBT about, about a variety thing of things. But the default is always the progressive position and you have to really dig in there and argue with them until they will tell you, you know, what is actually true, what the facts actually say. But most people aren't doing that. They're not doing the digging, they're not asking because I know what conclusion I to get it to. But most people aren't. And so if everyone is relying on AI to, for their research and for their answers to basically be their brain and the default is progressive values, I totally see what you're saying, that this is where their sites are set. They can't really change the Internet. They'll still try, but it exists. The ideas are out there, but they will try everything they can to monopolize the programming of AI to basically create a hive mind around the world, right?

Justin Haskins (21:44)

Yeah, I mean, I think that's unquestionably true. I mean this is, this is what they're openly saying. At conferences like the World Government Summit at WTF, at the annual Davos meeting and other places, the Biden administration very openly said things like this and some of, they had a couple different executive orders related to artificial intelligence development and things. And they talked about the need for it to be sustainable and all this other stuff and to promote, you know, DEI type agendas. I don't think they use that term exactly, but stuff like that. And so we know that this is what they want to do. And all of the people who are not all of them, but the vast majority of the people who are designing this technology, at least at the highest levels, are people who have a more progressive agenda. So it's not surprising at all. And it's not just about creating generative AI. That's what you're talking about. ChatGPT and Grok and things like that that have kind of a left wing agenda that is a huge part of the problem, no question about it. But big corporations are already adopting artificial intelligence to perform all kinds of different tasks for their businesses that will have a downstream effect on the rest of society. And in a lot of ways you won't even know why society is changing, but it'll be changing because the AI that's serving at foundation of these business functions are it's moving the country to the left and people don't even see it. So for example, one of the biggest areas for artificial intelligence moving forward, and this has already started to happen, it's going to become even bigger in the future, is having AI take over for financial institutions like banks take over the decision making for loans, for example, or other banking services. So instead of having loan officers, when you apply for a loan where a person sits down and they review your application and they decide whether you're, you're, you know, you're worthy enough to get a loan, you'll just have AI do that. Banks are already having AI do more and more of that for them. Well, what happens when that whole, that whole, I mean, a lot of industry people believe that the entire loan officer part of the industry is going to go away, it's going to all be decided by artificial intelligence? Well, Whoever designs the artificial intelligence is the one who's deciding who gets a loan and who doesn't get a loan.

Ali Stuckey (24:09)

Yeah.

Justin Haskins (24:09)

Based on all sorts of different criteria. And if you wanted to design AI so that it valued certain things over other things, ethnicity, you would have an AI system for a financial institution making decisions about who's eligible for loans or not. And you wouldn't even necessarily know why you've been accepted or rejected for the loan or the other banking service. You just would be rejected. And it might be because when artificial intelligence is going through the process of looking at your company and you don't have enough electric vehicles, you have too many gasoline powered vehicles. And it doesn't like that because it's been told to value, it's been designed to value, you know, sort of renewable energy type things, then your business might be turned down for reasons that you don't understand. That kind of thing is already started to happen and it's going to get worse. And I think the key for people to understand is that these AI systems have to be designed with values in them. They have to be. You can't design artificial intelligence to be totally 100% neutral. It actually creates all sorts of other problems. If you were to act to do that, to make AI in a business setting totally evidence based, totally based on data, it would do things that, that everyone agrees is bad. Like for example, it might come to the conclusion that certain racial groups are less likely to pay back their loans than other groups. Therefore, we should prioritize some races over other races when we're making our decisions. That might be in the data. And if it's in the data, you have a racist AI system making loan decisions based in part on race. And I think we all agree that's not what should happen. So you have to embed some kind of value into AI. And there's a billion other examples that we could point to that's just like that one. So the question is not whether AI should have values, it's what are the values that AI should have and who gets to decide that. And the problem that we're going to run into, that I think we're already starting to see it, is that the people designing AI are not people who have values like you and me. There are people who have progressive values. They're mostly Kamala Harris supporters. Those are the people who are designing it. And so what does the world look like when all of the banks are dependent on AI, when all of the financial institutions and Wall street are dependent on AI, when government becomes increasingly more dependent on AI and AI is being designed with the values that you and I don't hold. Well, what does that world look like? It doesn't look like the world that we want. And I think that is the biggest threat that we're facing right now. For people who support liberty.

Ali Stuckey (26:58)

Next sponsor is Cozy Earth. Okay, relay to bros. You've got Mother's Day coming up and probably one of the things that your wife would like in addition to share the Arrows tickets is some Cozy Earth loungewear or some pajamas. Like I am just very into in my mid-30s now being comfortable when I sleep. Like I care so much about my sheets and the blankets that I use and the pajamas that I wear. I want them to be top notch comfortable which is why I rely on our Cozy Earth sheets and my Cozy Earth pajamas. I've got a couple pairs of Cozy Earth pajamas that I just rotate. I even have their loungewear. My dad and chief related bro also wear their Cozy Earth loungewear. They love it. It is just so comfortable and so luxurious. They're bamboo sheet set and their pajamas are just amazing. Their bedding even comes with a 10 year warranty. Make sleep a priority. You need it. It's important. You can get an awesome discount when you use my link cozyearth.com relatable you'll get up to 40% off. Amazing. Cozy earth.com relatable code relatable. Can you tell me what the singularity is?

Justin Haskins (28:17)

Yeah. So the singularity is actually an idea that's been around for 60, 70 years. Essentially. It doesn't have a very specific narrow definition. What it means is this sort of hypothetical moment off into the future when technology advances to a point where it just is completely transformative for humanity. Typically the way it's talked about is artificial intelligence or just or machines in general become more intelligent than human beings. Other people talk about it as a moment when artificial intelligence becomes more intelligent than human beings and has the ability to sort of continue to redesign itself so that you get into this, this sort of positive feedback loop of AI becoming smarter and then making itself smarter and then making itself smarter until you have something called artificial superintelligence, which would be much, much smarter than humanity at virtually everything. And that creates all kinds of potential opportunities. Some of it's really, really positive. A lot of the biggest AI companies and developers believe that cancer will probably be cured within the next decade or two because of artificial intelligence and the improvements in artificial intelligence. But it also creates all kinds of ethical problems related to what happens when A lot of employees are no longer needed because HR and loan officers and all these other big gigantic parts of businesses can just be outsourced to an artificial intelligence system. Well, what happens to millions of jobs? Some people think that there's going to be hundreds of millions of jobs lost over the next 10 to 20 years because of this. Hundreds of millions of jobs. At the very least, it'll be tens of millions of jobs. There'll be massive disruptive disruptions in the job market. What do people do if you're in your mid-50s and you still need to work to earn a living, but you've been replaced by AI at your hr, in your HR department, I mean, what do you do for a living at that point? So you have those kinds of problems. But then you also have the issue of if we do reach this moment where artificial intelligence becomes more intelligent than human beings, more powerful than human beings, well then how do you stop that? How do you stop it from say, hacking into secure systems at the CIA or at financial institutions, or playing with the stock market or doing all kinds of crazy stuff? And this sounds totally insane, but this is the kind of thing that the Elon Musks of the world and the Sam Altmans, you know, people who are in charge of, guys in charge of OpenAI, that's the company that runs ChatGPT, Bill Gates. Like these are the kinds of things that they're talking about all the time. And they acknowledge while they're trying to develop artificial intelligence as fast as they possibly can, they acknowledge that the threats posed by artificial intelligence are so extreme and intense that all of humanity could be wiped out by it. And so, so it's this incredible moment in history that we're in right now where the world is on the brink of fundamentally changing, at least potentially. And most people don't really even talk about this on a day to day basis, you know, nevermind, worry about what sorts of laws should we put in place to try to prevent this from happening. The people who have lots of money and are focused on this are doing everything they can to design AI as fast as they possibly can because they're more concerned about technological advancement and beating China in the AI race and other foreign countries. And they're not nearly as concerned as I think they should be about these other ethical issues. And so the Singularity is something that you're going to hear a lot more about over the next five to 10 years as we get closer and closer to artificial superintelligence becoming a reality. And I actually think based on what the experts have said, based on what Sam Altman has said and others, that artificial superintelligence is probably inevitable. It's just a matter of getting enough AI infrastructure like data centers and power companies and things like that built, because you have to have huge amounts of processing power in order to make that happen. But once it happens, once you get that infrastructure in place, I think it's just a matter of time before we have artificial superintelligence and then what do we do? You know, these are the conversations we need to have now about this because the rest of this century is going to be dictated, I think, by artificial intelligence. And we need to know how to handle it, how to design it, what our values are. And this is probably the worst time in human history when it comes to answering some of those questions, because people are so confused about fundamental values and objective truth and sort of the core foundational things. If we can't agree on like definitions of what a woman is and what a man is. Exactly how are we going to deal with the sort of ethical questions that I'm talking about right now? I mean, this is a huge, huge problem, a crisis level problem.

Ali Stuckey (33:45)

Yeah.

Justin Haskins (33:45)

And Americans need to start taking it seriously. Seriously.

Ali Stuckey (33:49)

Yeah. People have posted their interactions with different kinds of AI, whether it's chat, GPT or grok, and you'll kind of, I think that you kind of get different answers. But I've seen people post their conversations of saying, like, would you rather asking the AI bot, Would you rather misgender someone? Like misgender Bruce Jenner or kill a thousand people? And it will literally try to give some nuanced take about how misgendering is never okay. And I know that we're talking beyond, beyond just these chat bots. We're talking about something much bigger than that. But if that's what's happening on a small scale, we can see a peek into the morality of artificial intelligence. And then you make that, you know, you extrapolate that, you grow that into like a super intelligent being that say, somehow I don't even fully understand it, but has the ability to make those kinds of decisions. We're in a really scary spot. Like, technology can tell you what can happen, but it alone can't tell you what should happen. Human beings with a moral compass, of course, we believe with eternity written on the heart, that's what the Bible says, that we're made in the image of God, that we have the unique capacity to be able to say what's right and what's wrong. And to harness nature in some ways and to harness technology. But if all of this is being created and programmed, as you said, by people with particular values that are either progressive or just pragmatist, like, if they're just like, yeah, whatever we can do and whatever makes life easier, whatever makes me richer, then we should just do that. And yeah, there will be consequences of it. But, you know, I actually saw someone. I forget who it was. It was some executive that said, you know, I'm not scared about AI killing 150 million jobs. That's actually why we are creating these very immersive video games, so that when people lose their jobs, they can just play these video games and they can be satisfied and fulfilled that way. That is a very dystopian look at the future. And yet that tells us the mind of a lot of the people at W E F, A lot of the people at Davos, a lot of the people in Silicon Valley. That's really how they see human beings. Whether you're talking about the Great Reset, whether you're talking about singularity, they don't see us as people with innate worth. They see us as cogs in a wheel, like people that can just be manipulated however they see fit. But I mean, it takes a worldview. It takes a value system to say, say no. People matter more than technology. Jobs matter not just for their utilitarian productivity that they offer, but because they offer dignity, because they offer worth to a person, they offer purpose to a person. And all of that matters because people actually matter. But that comes, like, as you said, from a particular worldview. And I am not the person that is programming AI. Someone who completely disagrees with me is, okay, one thing I know I do not do well is eat enough vegetables. I like fruit. I might eat enough fruit every day, but I know I don't eat enough vegetables. Like, I really need help with that. And a lot of the greens powders that I've used in the past, they just taste so horrible. And that's why I really like Field of Greens. It is. It's like nutritional armor for your body. It actually tastes good. You just put a scoop of this greens powder in your water, you mix it together, and then you have your servings of fruits and vegetables for the day. This is really important for immune health. It's also important for your hair, skin and nails. Just your overall energy, how good you feel. The vast majority of us, probably, I don't know, more than 90% of us don't get enough vegetables. We just don't have enough time in the day. It takes a lot of energy and effort to make and eat all those vegetables. So they make it really easy. And here's what's different about them. Every vegetable they use is actually organic. Okay? So a lot of those greens powders that you see, they'll say, oh, we're healthy, we're great for you. But they're not using organic vegetables. So they could be full of pesticides and things that are bad for you. It's totally counterproductive. Field of Greens is completely organic. If you go to fieldofgreens.com, you can use code ALI and you have 20% off your first order. That's a great deal. Fieldofgreens.com Code Alley I feel in some ways just as I did the first time I talked to you about the great reset, I'm like, I feel so powerless to do anything. And yet this past election told us that we're not exactly powerless. But this seems so much bigger than me and so far beyond most of our comprehension. Like, what can we do, the average person?

Justin Haskins (38:42)

Well, I think the first step is people have to start really thinking about these things and talking about these things. I mean, the, the, the whole anti ESG movement started from nothing. And now we have, you know, close to 20 states with anti ESG laws. We've got lots of progress that has been made on that front and ESG has been to a large extent beaten back because people started talking to each other about it. And I think that that's always the first step. Have conversations with people about artificial intelligence just to sort of pique their interest, friends and family members. You don't need to get into all sorts of crazy stuff, but just it should be on people's radars. I think that's the first step. The next thing is that I think that there needs to be regulations of artificial intelligence. Now, people on the right don't like regulations. I'm a libertarian leaning guy. I typically hate regulations. I don't support regulations generally speaking. But we're talking about something that is incredibly powerful, incredibly important. And we're talking about big, massive companies that have hundreds of billions of dollars, more than a trillion dollars in some cases, that they're spending on artificial intelligence development. These are limited liability corporations in most cases. So they have special laws that are given to them by government, protecting them from liability, giving them special tax advantages and other things. So we're not talking about some individual who owns a small business somewhere. And we want to impose our values on them or Regulate them out of existence. I'm not even saying that we should regulate artificial intelligence out of existence, but should we make sure. Should we make sure that artificial intelligence, if it's going to be designed, has the right values embedded within it? Yeah, I think we should do that. And I know for a fact that the left is trying to get artificial intelligence developed with its values. And so I think people on the right, we need to do the same thing. I think there should be laws that require AI systems to have certain respects for human rights. I don't think that's crazy. I don't think it's a job killer. I don't think it's sort of a left wing idea to say that if you're going to design AI with all these special tax advantages and all these other things as a limited liability gigantic corporation, then you should have to embed AI with respect for religious liberty, with respect for the value of humanity, with the understanding that free speech is an essential human right and other things like that. I think that at bare minimum we should have laws in place that do that. And I think that that's probably in the long run, the only chance we have of trying to get artificial intelligence to be designed responsibly. They're not. The people who are designing it are not going to do it responsibly on their own because they don't share our values. If they embed it with values, and they will, because as I said earlier, you have to embed it with some values for it to make any sense at all. They're going to do it with theirs.

Ali Stuckey (42:04)

Yeah.

Justin Haskins (42:04)

And I think that if it's especially ironic because so many of these artificial intelligence systems and the infrastructure behind them are actually being built in places like Texas. Texas is actually, is likely going to become the epicenter of artificial intelligence in the entire world.

Ali Stuckey (42:22)

Wow.

Justin Haskins (42:23)

Massive, massive investments are being made in Texas. Things like Project Stargate, for example, which was announced earlier this year. They're Talking about spending 500 billion, this is OpenAI, SoftBank and some other big institutions talking about spending $500 billion on AI infrastructure in Texas alone. The United Arab Emirates says that they're going to invest over a trillion dollars. I think a lot of that's going to be in Texas on artificial intelligence systems. Other places where they're building AI systems are in primarily red states. States because of the lack of, you know, there tends to be a lack of regulations and things like that in red states. It's easier to build things. The energy systems are more reliable in red States. And so these artificial intelligence companies want to build in red states. Well, if they're going to build in red states, then these systems should have red state values. They shouldn't have Silicon Valley values. If you want to build these massive data centers in Silicon Valley, go ahead. But they don't want to build them there. And so if they're going to put them in places where you have this, these, these communities that support freedom of speech, that support the Second Amendment, that support religious liberty, then I think that it's only fair that the AI being designed there should have some of these, should have all of those essential values as well. So I do think there are things we can do now, eventually, when you end up with artificial super intelligence, if that does happen, it doesn't matter what you designed it with. And that's one of the great fears related to the development of artificial intelligence and the Singularity and all of that, is that when you create something that's more intelligent than people and more powerful than people, you can't control it anymore. And what does the world look like when you can't control artificial intelligence? It's a very, very dangerous thing. And again, this is something that we be talking about and figuring out solutions for. I don't have all the solutions to these questions, but we should at least be having those conversations. And so I think, you know, interviews like this are so important because there's so few of these conversations happening and they need to be an essential part of the national conversation going forward. It's not enough to just talk about low taxes and budget battles and all of that stuff. Artificial intelligence and the disruptions that are going to come from it and the ethical questions related to it, it that is the future of, of, of the whole world, but especially the United States of America. And if we're not going to have that conversation now, then are we going to wait for the crisis to have it? And it doesn't make any sense. So it's time for us to start taking this seriously and figure out solutions to these problems.

Ali Stuckey (45:15)

Yeah. Gosh, this reminds me of Frankenstein. Like there are a lot of actually novels that this reminds me of. It reminds me in some ways of 1984. It reminds me of Brave New World, a lot of dystopian fiction we see unfolding before our eyes. You know, it's going to be difficult, I think, for business owners because I mean, it's just, it's more cost effective and easier in a lot of ways with less liability to use. AI for example, loan officers, I mean, People, because we are complex beings. We have all these different kind of layers. We have HR demands, We need benefits. You know, we have to provide for our family. We make mistakes. Now, AI can also make mistakes, by the way, because again, they're programmed by fallible human beings. But maybe we're more likely to make a mistake. We take longer to do things. Like I asked Grok a question this morning about some debate about some issue and it sent me point, counterpoint, point counterpoint, and I don't know, 15 seconds that would have probably taken me to get all of that information, maybe five to six hours. And that's five to six hours that I, you know, want to spend with my family and want to spend doing other things. So you can see the argument for it, especially when it's like, okay, instead of hiring this person, I'm just going to do this. But again, that just means we are going to have to really make sure that we as individuals, not even talking about on the political level, that we know what we believe, why we believe it. If you don't know your world, deal. If you don't know why we're here, where we come from, what right and wrong is why people matter, then you need to figure that out right now because you need to base your life and base your business and base your choices on those values. Now if your only value is making money, then yeah, like AI might be better than like hiring five loan officers, but if your value is higher than that, if it's bigger than that, okay, then you might need to make some different choices. And I'm with you. I'm not saying that AI is all bad, that we should like get rid of it in every single case. But again, we just need to make sure that even just we as people, as families, that we really know what we believe, why we believe it, and continue to follow that moral compass. Next next sponsor is Crowd Health. Crowd Health is a community driven platform that uses crowdfunding to help members pay for medical expenses. It offers an alternative to traditional health insurance. We know that health insurance can be burdensome, it can be confusing. It's kind of the last thing you want to have to navigate when you're going through some kind of health emergency. And so it might be time for your family to just opt out of the health insurance scheme altogether and to try Crowd Health. For $175 for an individual or $575 for a family of four or more, you get access to a community of people who are willing to help you out in the event of an emergency, you also get access to things like telemedicine, visits, discounted prescriptions, so much more without doctors networks getting in the way. And plus, of course, you join the crowd, a group of members just like you who want to help pay for each other's unexpected medical events. This is a great way specifically for Christians to come together and help bear one another's burdens. I mean, the burdens that are put on us just by sickness, living in a fallen world, but also sometimes the health care system, it can be really hard to bear. And this just makes that burden a lot lighter. Go to CrowdHealth.com or join CrowdHealth.com use code ALI when you use my code, you can get started for just 99amonth for your first three months. Months. Crowd health is not insurance. Learn more@joincrowdhealth.com Code Ali okay, you mentioned earlier the EU and how it is kind of like in this struggle in so many different ways, politically and morally. I mean, we've seen just the demographics change so much that's changed the politics of it. And they're kind of like a progressive stronghold in some ways. And we talked about right before the election this little known law that you were trying to sound the alarm about, but very few people knew about that had the potential to change all of our lives, to change how all businesses functioned both in Europe and here. And so I want you to just remind us quickly of what that law was, because that episode that we did had over a million views is fascinating. But also, what is the update? Because we know that the people who wanted that law passed did not want Donald Trump to win because he is a huge impediment to that part of the great reset.

Justin Haskins (50:10)

Yeah, yeah. So the law that we're talking about is something I refer to as the EU ESG law. The official name for it is the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. It's the most boring named law in history. But one of the most important laws, essentially what it was trying to do is create a government mandated ESG system in the European Union. So social credit scores, mostly left leaning stuff like battling climate change and other things, take that system and impose it on every major business that's operating in the European Union, whether they are a European company or they're a company based in some other country. So for example, an American company, a large American company that does above a certain business threshold in the European Union would have to comply with all of these ESG rules about social justice type stuff. Climate change Water usage, land usage, all kinds of different things. In fact, the law is so vaguely written, we don't even know all of the metrics yet, because each individual EU nation is supposed to create its own version of this law and then impose it on the companies that are operating within their countries. So we, we don't know. We just know the floor for how crazy it is. We don't necessarily know the ceiling for how crazy it could get. It will change country by country. But not only is that, I mean, that just in and of itself is bad enough because you have all these huge companies that do above that business threshold I was talking about, which I think was about five hundred hundred million dollars or so of business in the European Union. So you've got companies like Apple and Meta and a lot of food companies, big food conglomerate companies like Pepsi and Coca Cola and places like that. They're reaching these thresholds of doing business in the European Union. So they're going to have to comply with these EU ESG metrics and thereby moving their entire, not just with the stuff they're doing in the European Union, but all throughout their business in the United States and all over the world. So by doing this, you're effectively exporting the EU esg, you know, requirements all over the world, including in the United States, and then transforming those places as a result of it. Right, but in addition to that, as bad as that is, the really insidious part is that one of the requirements for these companies that fall under this law is that they have to force all, not all, but most of the companies that they do business with in their, what they call chain of activities, just kind of like a supply chain to comply with these rules as well, even if those companies are small and even if they don't do any business in the European Union. So, for example, let's say you have a transportation company that's just a handful of trucks and they do business with some large company that operates in the European Union and has to comply with these EU ESG rules. This law will require that large company to force that small transportation company to change its policies so that it's in compliance with the EU ESG rules as well. So you'll have mom and pop shops that are being contractually forced by these massive companies that they're dependent on in a business relationship to change so that they're doing things that comply with an EU ESG structure. So it is, it is a way for the European Union to force the rest of the world to be just like the European Union.

Ali Stuckey (53:47)

Right.

Justin Haskins (53:47)

And one of the reasons they're doing that is because it's not just that they're progressives and that's what they want, but it's also because their own companies in the European Union are at a huge disadvantage with companies all over the world because they have all these crazy requirements in the European Union that they don't have anywhere else in the world. World. So one solution to that is you reduce the requirements, you deregulate. Another solution is you come up with this crazy scheme that forces everybody into the same stupid set of laws. And that's exactly what they figured out a way of doing. So if you want to do business in the European Union, you have to comply with these EU ESG rules. And these large companies will do basically anything to continue doing business in the euro, because a lot of them are making tons and tons and tons of money in the EU and they're not going to stop doing business there just because they have to comply with some ESG requirements. They have no problem with forcing the rest of the world to go along with it because it's all about money for them. So this is a massive problem. The law has already been passed in the eu. It was. It's set to go into effect. It was set to go into effect within the next couple of years. It was going to be rolled out based on company size. And as this starts going into effect, the world is going to be transformed because of it, along EU ESG guidelines. So really, really scary stuff. As you pointed, as you mentioned, a lot of people saw the interview that we did. I did some interviews with some other folks, like Glenn Beck has talked a lot about this as well. And as a result of that, I believe a lot of people started learning about it in corporations, started putting pressure, American corporations, on members of Congress. Congress has started to talk about taking action against it. The Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, was asked about this during his confirmation hearing, and he flat or in a questionnaire that was given to him prior to his confirmation hearing, I think, and he flat out said, like, we'll do anything we can to stop it. This should not be tolerated. It should not be allowed. After Donald Trump won, the EU delayed implementation of the law by a whole year. They pushed it back a whole year because they're terrified that the Trump administration is going to push back against it with even more tariffs and other trade requirements. But the most exciting thing and the pushback against this EU ESG law comes from a US Senator named Bill Haggerty, who's a Senator from Tennessee, he proposed a law called the Protect USA Act. And the whole point of this bill is to stop the EU ESG law. That's the entire reason for the bill. Essentially what it would do is make it illegal for a lot of American companies to comply with it. It actually forces a lot of American companies, they have a way of determining which companies would be in this situation to avoid the compliance with this EU ESG law. In addition to that, it would allow the President to basically designate almost any company or industry as being important enough that those companies within that industry don't have to comply with it. And it would allow people who have been harmed by this law to sue private companies that are imposing these rules on them and get restitution. I think it's like up to a million dollars or something like that. That. So in civil action. So it has. And then there's this other really incredibly important part of the law that says that the President would have the ability to do basically anything he needs to do to stop this, this EU ESG law, or laws like it, other laws like it, from negatively impacting the United States. So it really gives. Would give sweeping power to the federal government to stop this EU ESG law because it's an assault on our national sovereignty and what it means to be an American and what it means for us to chart our own destiny. We can't have the European Union imposing laws on our companies and transforming our society. So there has been a lot of progress. There's talk in the European Union about revising the law. It looks like they are going to revise it, water it down. To what extent they water it down, we don't know. But it's a direct reaction to the pushback that has come and the Trump administration coming into power from the pushback from the public and the Trump administration and some members of Congress. Now the European Union is starting to change its tune on all of this. So a lot more work needs to be done on this. There's still a lot of people who have never heard of it, don't know anything about it. If everybody in America knew about it, I guarantee this thing would be killed almost overnight. But we have made a lot of progress. And it really did look like a sort of David versus Goliath situation for a long time. Nobody had ever heard of it. I'd been following this law for years, doing research on it. It just never really caught on. And now there's suddenly a lot of attention being given to this, especially among corporations and government officials. So this is just further proof. You know, we saw this with ESG generally and the Great Reset. We saw this with sort of the woke agenda that was being pushed by companies like Target and other companies. We're seeing this now with the EU ESG law. You know, you mentioned earlier the sort of sense of powerlessness that people have. I totally get it. I've been there. I felt that way for a very long time. But the truth is, we have actually had some huge victories on our side. Not just political victories, but other kinds of victories as well. The culture is. Is changing. Younger people are much more likely to be conservative than millennials, and the world is moving more and more in our direction. And I think that the fact that we've been standing up to some of the most powerful, richest institutions in the world for years now, and we're actually seeing victories come out of that, is proof that regular people still do have a lot of power. And I think that the progressives, and especially the sort of elitist progressives, they bank on the idea that people feel powerless and that they won't feel like they can do anything to stop these things from happening. But the truth is, the pushback that we've had against these large companies, against the European Union elections, and not just through elections, but our. Our personal, individual actions, refusing to shop at certain places, making it very clear on social media how we feel about things, all of this has had a positive impact on the world. And, yes, more progress needs to be made. Yes, artificial intelligence and emerging technologies pose a lot of threats to us. But if we stay vigilant and we stay on top of things, I really do believe that we're going to continue to see our side advance, our side win, because I believe we're on the right side of history. I believe that we are, are doing the right things, that we're morally grounded in truth and not just in our feelings and sort of subjective shifting standards that don't really mean anything. And because of that, I think the truth will ultimately win out. I really do believe that. And I think that if you start with that foundation, there's a lot of evidence to look at over the past five to 10 years that says, yes, that act, that strategy is, it is working, and we just have to keep fighting. And as long as we don't give up, up, I think in the end, the world will be a better, freer place.

Ali Stuckey (61:25)

Yeah. And we all play a role in that. Obviously, you have a huge role in this, and I just want to, you know, amplify the research you do that's part of my role, talking about some of these other things. But then everyone has their role in voting with their dollar and how they raise their families, what they're teaching their kids, I mean self reliance as a family, ensuring again that you know what your world worldview is, which includes understanding what the Bible says. Like there's so much that you can do just as an individual to play your part in this. Not everyone has the same part. Politicians have their part, commentators have their part, researchers have their part. The parents, the professionals, everyone plays their role in all of this. And doing and saying what is true, it really matters. You're doing something to combat all of this. You've just created a fellowship program through Mercury, through Mercury One, and it's called the Freedom Rising Fellowship Program. It really is doing and equipping young people to do a lot of what you're saying, pushing back against all of this. So tell us about it.

Justin Haskins (62:31)

Yeah, so last year we started this fellowship program, 2024, at the American Journey Experience, which is part of Mercury One. Mercury One was founded by Glenn Beck. And one of the things that Mercury One does is it educates young people about American history, educates young people about worldview and conservative political philosophy and all of that stuff. And part of that effort is now this Freedom Rising Fellowship program that we have where we're trying to train the next generation of young people age 18 into their early 30s. So we're talking about people who are in college or they're young professionals or graduate school students. Somewhere in that range, we're trying to teach those people how to become world changers, how to make an impact through research and public policy, how to get things accomplished at the grassroots level through public policy, through reaching out to lawmakers and educating lawmakers and telling them about the next big issue and learning just about all of these sort of crazy things that are going on in the world before other people learn about them. How do we do these research? How do we, we conduct this research? How do we find out about these new things before everybody else does? Me and my research team have been doing this now for a very long time. We've been very successful at it. And so people who are interested, if you're, if you're a young person between the ages of 18 and say 35, you're interested in getting involved in the pro liberty movement, you want to be involved in journalism or media or public policy, or you want to run for office, or you want to do something right, something in that vein of things you want to Become a conservative activist that helps make the world a better place. I encourage you to apply to this fellowship program. You're going to learn a ton of great information. We're going to help you get published. We're going to have you work on public policy that might actually become laws passed at the state or federal level. It's a really exciting opportunity. It's very selective, but I encourage anyone who's interested to apply. You can do that by sending an email statement of interest with your resume or CV and a couple of writing samples to fellowshipmercury1.org you can also go to mercury1.org, go to the Education tab in the menu and you can find a little bit more information about the fellowship program and the dates and all of that stuff. But yeah, I'm really excited about it. We had our first class last year. They were absolutely fantastic. We had a great time. They got a lot of stuff published and I'm so excited to continue the program and also to expand it in the years that come.

Ali Stuckey (65:14)

Awesome. Well, thank you so much Justin. I really appreciate the work you're doing and that you took the time to come on today.

Justin Haskins (65:21)

Thanks Ali.

Ali Stuckey (65:27)

Another pause to remind you guys to sign up for Share the Arrows. Get your tickets today. It is going to be an amazing Christian women's theology apologetics conference. We are going to be talking about motherhood. We are going to be talking about the dangers of the new age. We are going to be talking about how to approach health and wellness in a biblical and balanced way. Katie Faust will be there. Elisa Childers, Ginger Duggar, Volo, Shawna Holman, Taylor Dukes, Francesca Battistelli leading worship. I will also be speaking. Thousands of you will be traveling from all over the country to be there. So so you will be worshiping alongside like minded courageous women. You will have the opportunity to make lifelong friendships. That's what happened last year. It is a special, special day. I do not want you to have fomo. I promise if you don't sign up for Share the Arrows and you see the videos you will have fomo. The merch alone will make you have fomo. I don't want that for you. Related. Well I almost said related bro and related gal. This is only for related gals. So Related bros for Mother's Day go ahead and buy the related gal in your life tickets to Share the Arrows. She will be so excited. Go to sharethe arrows.com get your tickets today. That's sharethe arrows dot com.