Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Mark Albarian discusses plunge in gold prices

April 15, 2013
Wilson

Writer

Earlier today, the price of gold began to plummet and if you looked at Drudge Report the message was clear: 'Panic everywhere'. Glenn invited Mark Albarian, President & CEO at Goldline International, Inc (and sponsor of this program and website), to discuss the news and give his perspective on what is happening in the gold market.

GLENN: I've been e‑mailing back and forth with a lot of people over the weekend because some really significant things are happening with the U.S. dollar. I don't know how much time we have, but I will tell you the clock that we feared and told you would happen and would start clicking and ticking is, and it's only a matter of time before the U.S. dollar is not supreme anymore. And there's something weird happening at the same time. For some unknown reason gold is now plummeting, and if I'm looking at the Drudge Report, it says panic is everywhere. Mark Albarian is a sponsor of this program. He is from Goldline, and I wanted to call him and find out why is gold plunging. What is happening, Mark?

ALBARIAN: Well, I think people have reacted what Goldman Sachs said about a week ago where they said gold was going to go lower. And, you know, traders out there, if they get information like that, will sometimes sell gold, sell their gold or sell gold short to take advantage of a Goldman Sachs quote. Goldman Sachs' basis for it is, "Hey, the economy's getting better. The world's getting better. Everything's okay. Look at the stock market going up. Gold's not as important."

GLENN: Can you tell me that ‑‑

ALBARIAN: That's not something that I personally believe in the long run.

GLENN: I don't believe ‑‑ I mean, really? Goldman Sachs said it. So it must be so. I don't ‑‑ I'm not one that actually believes that this is coincidence that the sovereign funds are buying up gold, or as countries collapse, they are dumping gold and then at the same time we're being told that the economy is okay. I personally think that this is collusion. It is keeping the price of gold down for the sovereign central banks so they can store the gold. Do you think there's anything to that? Because that's just ‑‑ that's just me saying that. Is there anything that you've ever read ‑‑

ALBARIAN: Well, I think there's a lot to be said for that. First of all, there's some talk that Cyprus might sell its gold. Whenever a country or a central bank or there's rumors that a large amount of gold is going to hit the market, people panic. Remember Germany talked about selling their gold. Switzerland talked about selling their gold. Many, many times it just doesn't happen.

The other thing is as you've seen and I've seen is that China and Russia have increased their gold reserves. So whenever there's been an opportunity to buy any quantity of gold, you've seen other countries. It's not just the big ones or the giant ones. You see India increasing gold reserves from time to time. So you see other countries taking advantage of these opportunities.

Right now that word "panic," it's, there's no panic at Goldline. There's no panic in the physical market. I don't think investors that own gold are panicking. I think people that are on margin, that are speculating, that are traders, they've made ‑‑

GLENN: They are panicking.

ALBARIAN: Yeah, they overreacted. How come nobody's talking about silver? Silver's down today almost 9%. So if gold's going down, does it make sense that silver goes down? Does it make sense that platinum goes down? Does it make sense that palladium, which is almost purely an industrial metal. So if things are going ‑‑ getting better, does it make sense that palladium is down today 5%? It seems like it's, you know, an overreaction in the trading markets. But who knows.

GLENN: Okay. So gold mining shares around the world were battered, and this is kind of what you're talking about and this is something that I have said don't do and that is buy paper gold. So the ‑‑

ALBARIAN: I would agree with you. Gold mining shares, what you are doing is you are investing in a business. If that gold mine makes money and the stock market's good, you'll make money. But you're not betting specifically on the gold price. And shares can, you know, react up or down because people feel like gold's going to go up or because of a particular mine.

GLENN: Okay. So when does ‑‑ because ‑‑ in fact, I got a call from a guy today. I got a call from a guy. And he said, "Glenn, I just want you to know because I know you're a big gold guy." He said, you've got to get out of gold because it's going to plummet. And I said, thank you very much. What do you think it's going to hit? And he said, I don't know, but it's going to go down and I said, great, because I'm going to be planning on buying more. Because I just don't believe that the ‑‑ with what happened, Mark, this is what's so confusing. You followed the currency stuff that was happening over the weekend with Japan and Switzerland and France and Australia last week, with China and the currency, right?

ALBARIAN: Yes, all the currencies.

GLENN: Okay.

ALBARIAN: It's interesting because we've seen the dollar at a level now that, with all that's going on in the world, everybody's now saying the U.S. currency is the safest.

GLENN: Well, but China is making moves to basically set up, I think, the ultimate undermining of the U.S. dollar, and it's only a matter of time I think before the dollar collapses or interest rates have got to be jacked up to be able to hold this thing together which would eventually mean our demise. But it doesn't make sense. Those things don't go together.

ALBARIAN: Yeah, I think that's a great point. Lots of things don't go together. So if gold is going down today, wouldn't you expect that the stock market might be going up? And the Dow's down over 80 points. I mean, how is everything going down at one time? And China looking for world dominance? Clearly that's an issue, and it's hard for us to be on an equal footing with China when we negotiate with them because we owe them so much money. When you owe somebody a lot of money, you have to be nice to them. You're not really equal when you negotiate.

GLENN: One of my guys came in this morning and said that he had read a thing that it showed, it was a chart of all of the central banks, that all of the central banks in the last five years have made significant increases in their gold reserve. True or false?

ALBARIAN: True.

GLENN: By an unusual amount or is this the usual you kind of fluctuation?

ALBARIAN: Well, actually the usual thing is one of the things that caused gold to stay low for all those years was that the central banks were actually selling gold. They weren't adding to their reserves. They were selling. And there was an agreement between the central banks, they were selling so much gold, it was hurting the gold miners. It was hurting the actual workers in South Africa that needed a job because they were in risk of closing mines. So they all got together around gold prices of $300 or even a little less and said, you know, let's stop selling gold so quickly. And they all agreed to do that.

Now, independent of that, we saw the financial crisis in 2007, 2008, 2009. And from that point on, central bankers have been adding to their gold reserves. People would have been happy if they just agreed to sell normally, but they went the other way. They started buying. And the people that have the most gold and the most power to move the gold market in my opinion are the central bankers.

GLENN: Do you think there's any gold in the United States?

ALBARIAN: I would guess that there's gold at Fort Knox. I would guess that there's gold at the Federal Reserve. I would guess also that there's a lot that I don't know and that we don't know and they are not telling us.

GLENN: Do you ‑‑

ALBARIAN: Because if it was completely transparent, they would call in one of the big four accounting firms and they would just do an audit and they would take pictures.

GLENN: Why would Illinois last week begin the passage of a bill to log everybody's gold, to make in the State of Illinois that if you have gold, you need to report it to the State of Illinois so they know exactly how much you have of physical gold?

ALBARIAN: I don't know where that bill went but I'll tell you I'm very concerned when you get government asking that question. Even if it was just a proposed bill, even if it gets shot down quickly, that makes you nervous. I think an equally important question is why would the State of Texas be so concerned about getting their gold physically in their state. If the State of Texas doesn't trust somebody else to hold their gold, then I think that my view over all these years has probably been right: The people ought to buy gold and put it someplace safe and have complete control over it. Real gold, not paper, hold it themselves.

GLENN: All right. Thanks a lot, Mark. I appreciate it.

ALBARIAN: Thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: All right. Again, full disclosure. He is a sponsor. He is a friend of mine, but he's also a sponsor of the program and that was not a commercial. You ‑‑ I mean, it's ‑‑ God only knows what is going to happen. You know, if you had gold, I'd keep it to yourself. I would keep it to yourself. Now, in the future is it going to be ‑‑ I mean, do you see up on TheBlaze they have a new story out, where is it, hungry for some Hunger Games: See the first trailer released for the second film? How is it nobody can see that you're headed toward that kind of a world? I'm not saying that we're going to be hunting each other, but you're headed towards a rule ‑‑ a world where you're ruled over. I mean, is it un ‑‑ is it unreasonable to say right now that if the economy collapsed that the government could say, "If you trade in gold, if you..." I mean, they are already doing it. They are arresting you if you have vegetables and you are trying to sell your farm fresh vegetables to a neighbor. Remember, they went in, where was it, in Colorado where they went with bleach to destroy all of it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, is it really that so unusual that we ‑‑ I mean, we're headed toward some really spooky things if we don't wake up.

Americans expose Supreme Court’s flag ruling as a failed relic

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

In a nation where the Stars and Stripes symbolize the blood-soaked sacrifices of our heroes, President Trump's executive order to crack down on flag desecration amid violent protests has ignited fierce debate. But in a recent poll, Glenn asked the tough question: Can Trump protect the Flag without TRAMPLING free speech? Glenn asked, and you answered—thousands weighed in on this pressing clash between free speech and sacred symbols.

The results paint a picture of resounding distrust toward institutional leniency. A staggering 85% of respondents support banning the burning of American flags when it incites violence or disturbs the peace, a bold rejection of the chaos we've seen from George Floyd riots to pro-Palestinian torchings. Meanwhile, 90% insist that protections for burning other flags—like Pride or foreign banners—should not be treated the same as Old Glory under the First Amendment, exposing the hypocrisy in equating our nation's emblem with fleeting symbols. And 82% believe the Supreme Court's Texas v. Johnson ruling, shielding flag burning as "symbolic speech," should not stand without revision—can the official story survive such resounding doubt from everyday Americans weary of government inaction?

Your verdict sends a thunderous message: In this divided era, the flag demands defense against those who exploit freedoms to sow disorder, without trampling the liberties it represents. It's a catastrophic failure of the establishment to ignore this groundswell.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Labor Day EXPOSED: The Marxist roots you weren’t told about

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

During your time off this holiday, remember the man who started it: Peter J. McGuire, a racist Marxist who co-founded America’s first socialist party.

Labor Day didn’t begin as a noble tribute to American workers. It began as a negotiation with ideological terrorists.

In the late 1800s, factory and mine conditions were brutal. Workers endured 12-to-15-hour days, often seven days a week, in filthy, dangerous environments. Wages were low, injuries went uncompensated, and benefits didn’t exist. Out of desperation, Americans turned to labor unions. Basic protections had to be fought for because none were guaranteed.

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

That era marked a seismic shift — much like today. The Industrial Revolution, like our current digital and political upheaval, left millions behind. And wherever people get left behind, Marxists see an opening.

A revolutionary wedge

This was Marxism’s moment.

Economic suffering created fertile ground for revolutionary agitation. Marxists, socialists, and anarchists stepped in to stoke class resentment. Their goal was to turn the downtrodden into a revolutionary class, tear down the existing system, and redistribute wealth by force.

Among the most influential agitators was Peter J. McGuire, a devout Irish Marxist from New York. In 1874, he co-founded the Social Democratic Workingmens Party of North America, the first Marxist political party in the United States. He was also a vice president of the American Federation of Labor, which would become the most powerful union in America.

McGuire’s mission wasn’t hidden. He wanted to transform the U.S. into a socialist nation through labor unions.

That mission soon found a useful symbol.

In the 1880s, labor leaders in Toronto invited McGuire to attend their annual labor festival. Inspired, he returned to New York and launched a similar parade on Sept. 5 — chosen because it fell halfway between Independence Day and Thanksgiving.

The first parade drew over 30,000 marchers who skipped work to hear speeches about eight-hour workdays and the alleged promise of Marxism. The parade caught on across the country.

Negotiating with radicals

By 1894, Labor Day had been adopted by 30 states. But the federal government had yet to make it a national holiday. A major strike changed everything.

In Pullman, Illinois, home of the Pullman railroad car company, tensions exploded. The economy tanked. George Pullman laid off hundreds of workers and slashed wages for those who remained — yet refused to lower the rent on company-owned homes.

That injustice opened the door for Marxist agitators to mobilize.

Sympathetic railroad workers joined the strike. Riots broke out. Hundreds of railcars were torched. Mail service was disrupted. The nation’s rail system ground to a halt.

President Grover Cleveland — under pressure in a midterm election year — panicked. He sent 12,000 federal troops to Chicago. Two strikers were killed in the resulting clashes.

With the crisis spiraling and Democrats desperate to avoid political fallout, Cleveland struck a deal. Within six days of breaking the strike, Congress rushed through legislation making Labor Day a federal holiday.

It was the first of many concessions Democrats would make to organized labor in exchange for political power.

What we really celebrated

Labor Day wasn’t born out of gratitude. It was a political payoff to Marxist radicals who set trains ablaze and threatened national stability.

Kean Collection / Staff | Getty Images

What we celebrated was a Canadian idea, brought to America by the founder of the American Socialist Party, endorsed by racially exclusionary unions, and made law by a president and Congress eager to save face.

It was the first of many bones thrown by the Democratic Party to union power brokers. And it marked the beginning of a long, costly compromise with ideologues who wanted to dismantle the American way of life — from the inside out.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Durham annex EXPOSES Soros, Pentagon ties to Deep State machine

ullstein bild Dtl. / Contributor | Getty Images

The Durham annex and ODNI report documents expose a vast network of funders and fixers — from Soros’ Open Society Foundations to the Pentagon.

In a column earlier this month, I argued the deep state is no longer deniable, thanks to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. I outlined the structural design of the deep state as revealed by two recent declassifications: Gabbard’s ODNI report and the Durham annex released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

These documents expose a transnational apparatus of intelligence agencies, media platforms, think tanks, and NGOs operating as a parallel government.

The deep state is funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

But institutions are only part of the story. This web of influence is made possible by people — and by money. This follow-up to the first piece traces the key operatives and financial networks fueling the deep state’s most consequential manipulations, including the Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

Architects and operatives

At the top of the intelligence pyramid sits John Brennan, President Obama’s CIA director and one of the principal architects of the manipulated 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence, signed off on that same ICA and later joined 50 other former officials in concluding the Hunter Biden laptop had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation” ahead of the 2020 election. The timing, once again, served a political objective.

James Comey, then FBI director, presided over Crossfire Hurricane. According to the Durham annex, he also allowed the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server to collapse after it became entangled with “sensitive intelligence” revealing her plan to tie President Donald Trump to Russia.

That plan, as documented in the annex, originated with Hillary Clinton herself and was personally pushed by President Obama. Her campaign, through law firm Perkins Coie, hired Fusion GPS, which commissioned the now-debunked Steele dossier — a document used to justify surveillance warrants on Trump associates.

Several individuals orbiting the Clinton operation have remained influential. Jake Sullivan, who served as President Biden’s national security adviser, was a foreign policy aide to Clinton during her 2016 campaign. He was named in 2021 as a figure involved in circulating the collusion narrative, and his presence in successive Democratic administrations suggests institutional continuity.

Andrew McCabe, then the FBI’s deputy director, approved the use of FISA warrants derived from unverified sources. His connection to the internal “insurance policy” discussion — described in a 2016 text by FBI official Peter Strzok to colleague Lisa Page — underscores the Bureau’s political posture during that election cycle.

The list of political enablers is long but revealing:

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who, as a former representative from California, chaired the House Intelligence Committee at the time and publicly promoted the collusion narrative while having access to intelligence that contradicted it.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), both members of the “Gang of Eight” with oversight of intelligence operations, advanced the same narrative despite receiving classified briefings.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, exchanged encrypted text messages with a Russian lobbyist in efforts to speak with Christopher Steele.

These were not passive recipients of flawed intelligence. They were participants in its amplification.

The funding networks behind the machine

The deep state’s operations are not possible without financing — much of it indirect, routed through a nexus of private foundations, quasi-governmental entities, and federal agencies.

George Soros’ Open Society Foundations appear throughout the Durham annex. In one instance, Open Society Foundations documents were intercepted by foreign intelligence and used to track coordination between NGOs and the Clinton campaign’s anti-Trump strategy.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control.

Soros has also been a principal funder of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, which ran a project during the Trump administration called the Moscow Project, dedicated to promoting the Russia collusion narrative.

The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors both specialize in “dark money” donor-advised funds that obscure the source and destination of political funding. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was the biggest donor to the Arabella Advisors by far, which routed $127 million through Arabella’s network in 2020 alone and nearly $500 million in total.

The MacArthur Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation also financed many of the think tanks named in the Durham annex, including the Council on Foreign Relations.

Federal funding pipelines

Parallel to the private networks are government-funded influence operations, often justified under the guise of “democracy promotion” or counter-disinformation initiatives.

USAID directed $270 million to Soros-affiliated organizations for overseas “democracy” programs, a significant portion of which has reverberated back into domestic influence campaigns.

The State Department funds the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-governmental organization with a $315 million annual budget and ties to narrative engineering projects.

The Department of Homeland Security underwrote entities involved in online censorship programs targeting American citizens.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The Pentagon, from 2020 to 2024, awarded over $2.4 trillion to private contractors — many with domestic intelligence capabilities. It also directed $1.4 billion to select think tanks since 2019.

According to public records compiled by DataRepublican, these tax-funded flows often support the very actors shaping U.S. political discourse and global perception campaigns.

Not just domestic — but global

What these disclosures confirm is that the deep state is not a theory. It is a documented structure — funded by elite donors, shielded by bureaucracies, and perpetuated by operatives who drift between public office and private influence without accountability.

This system was not designed for transparency but for control. It launders narratives, neutralizes opposition, and overrides democratic will by leveraging the very institutions meant to protect it.

With the Durham annex and the ODNI report, we now see the network's architecture and its actors — names, agencies, funding trails — all laid bare. What remains is the task of dismantling it before its next iteration takes shape.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The truth behind ‘defense’: How America was rebranded for war

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.