BLOG

Ben Shapiro on School Safety: ‘We Should Be Guarding Our Kids’ the Way We Guard Banks

In the wake of the latest school shooting, liberals only seem interested in gun control. Why is discussing school security and other bipartisan solutions controversial?

On today’s show, Ben Shapiro listed some ways to help keep students safe, discourage shooters and potentially prevent the next tragedy – all without eroding our Second Amendment rights. Liberals have turned the gun debate into a “moral push” even though we should be able to find bipartisan, commonsense solutions like these:

     

  • The media should stop publicizing the shooters’ names and faces and giving them infamous celebrity, something that encourages future school shooters.
  •  

  • Lawmakers should consider measures that let family and close friends petition to have someone’s gun rights suspended if there is enough evidence that they are dangerous.
  •  

  • Schools should increase their security, whether it’s through fences or more armed personnel.

“We should be guarding our kids the same way we’re guarding our banks,” Shapiro said.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

STU: Editor-in-chief of the daily wire, Ben Shapiro.

Hello, Ben, how are you?

BEN: Hanging in there. How are you?

GLENN: Good.

Has anybody followed your lead on not giving the name of the shooter?

BEN: Not so far as I'm aware. So we over at The Daily Wire have taken up the policy in the last week and a half after Parkland of not turning the name or face of the shooter on our website.

I'm not aware that anybody else in the mainstream media have done that. We're not the first to the ballgame, of course. There are other outlets that have done that before.

But I am surprised that the same media that proclaims that every law-abiding gun owner in the country has to give up their rifle, is -- is happy to show continually on a loop the name and face of the shooter, when there are many studies suggesting that mass shooters actually thrive on the sort of publicity. It drives actually more common mass shootings.

GLENN: So, Ben, we are totally unhinged now from facts.

The CNN town hall debate last week was grotesque. And they still don't get it.

I mean, I think it would do a great service to CNN and a Jake Tapper, if they would just come out and say, you know what, having that crowd there was a horrible idea. Horrible idea.

Would you agree?

BEN: Totally agree. I mean, I thought it was Orwell's HEP -- I thought it was just a show trial for gun owners. I thought it was a show trial for the NRA.

And, you know, I know Jake. I like Jake. I think Jake does a good job, when he tries.

GLENN: Me too.

BEN: But I think that that -- I told him this, I thought that was a great injustice. I thought it was just a great injustice.

I thought the entire event was a setup from the start. Jake was not a moderator. Jake allowed the students to go up there and browbeat people like Senator Rubio, one of the students suggesting that when he looked at Rubio, it was like looking at the barrel of the gun of the shooter, which is just an insane statement to make publicly. And the crowd cheered that because it was more of a bang mob than it was an actual crowd of people considering possible arguments.

I understand passions are high. But that's the whole point of being in the news business. I mean, passions are high a lot of places. But there's a selective decision that's being made by news outlets as to which sorts of town halls are set up like this.

I mean, as I said at the time, I don't remember CNN doing a town hall in Texas on the border about illegal immigration after some high-profile killing of somebody by an illegal immigrant.

GLENN: No.

BEN: With all the members of the community. Of course they wouldn't do that. Because they would say, this isn't newsworthy. It's not newsworthy that people are passionate and upset after a shooting.

What's newsworthy is the argument that actually happens on the basis of reason and decency. And both of those things have completely fallen away are. And instead, CNN has decided to put on a particular set of students.

And there are a bunch of students who go to that school. I mean, there are thousands of students who go to that school. I know at least one of them who is a Second Amendment advocate who is not being booked every single day on CNN. The ones who are booked every day on CNN are, of course, these small group of students that you've seen their faces plastered all over the media, Emma Gonzalez and Cameron Cassty and HEP David Hog, and you know their names. You don't know the names of any of the people who were killed. But you know the names of these kids who are on TV the last two weeks, spouting gun control and suggesting folks like Dana Loesch, who we both know and like and are friends with, that people like Dana are actually uncaring about the death of children, which is just the sickest form of demogoguary. I mean, I've been calling that out since Piers Morgan. I hate that so much, this routine where we disagree on policy and therefore we don't get care if kids get killed. It's disgusting.

GLENN: Well, you could make the case that we care about kids getting killed in larger numbers than what is happening now. The greatest mass shootings in all of history come from out-of-control governments. And that's why we have the Second Amendment. To sit here and say we don't care about kids being shot, we absolutely do care about that. But we also care about protecting the freedoms of children and the children that haven't even been born yet.

BEN: That's exactly right. It's also true that even if you were to put aside the arguments on the founding level for the Second Amendment, you're telling me that in this particular case, the FBI failed twice. They were told specifically twice about the shooter by name, and they did nothing. The local law enforcement had at least 45 calls according to CNN from the shooter's house, including the shooter himself calling the police on himself, a few months ago. And they did nothing. And then we had an armed deputy on -- was present with a handgun. And we're now being told by the media, of course, that a handgun could never go up against a rifle. Which is just an insane contention that is completely meritless, as anyone who has ever fired a gun knows. And then they're telling us that all these law enforcement bodies failed, but we have to give up our guns.

So just to get this straight. My self-defense now rests on me giving up my guns to a bunch of people who will do nothing if somebody threatens me with a gun. So even on the most basic self-defense level, why in the world would I possibly give up my rights to keep and bear firearms, when the authorities aren't even keeping me safe? I mean, according to the Lockian HEP bargain, this is like their only job. Their only job is to protect life, liberty, and property. And they didn't do any of those things. They're not protecting life obviously. They didn't in Parkland. They're not protecting liberty because they want to seize my liberty and not protect my life. And they're not protecting the property of the school.

GLENN: Ben, where do you think this goes?

Because we all know that another shooting is going to happen. Because we're not taking care of the real issues. We're not even willing to -- you know, I was talking yesterday about, you know, they'll take and send the police for, you know, a third grader, who is brandishing a second degree lookalike firearm, otherwise known as a finger gun, and yet we cannot have a conversation -- they'll say, that's leading to violence. And we can't have a conversation about our culture, about the violent nature of our culture. The violent nature of our movies. The video games that our kids are deeply entrenched in. I'm not saying I want to ban any of that or anything else. But we can't even have a conversation about it.

It's all about control over you and any way of you defending yourself. So where do we go from here?

Because half of the country is dead set on that, it seems.

BEN: Yeah. I think it's going to be hard to go anywhere. Again, the entire premise of this conversation has become, you hate children. And you can't have a conversation with someone when they're screaming you hate children. How are we supposed to any sort of agreement about that?

I think there are things that could be done. I mean, I've suggested a bunch of things I think would be effective. Not only HEP faces, but I think that David French has proposed gun violence restraining orders, which is a bunch of basically your family members and close friends can go to a court and petition to have your gun rights temporarily suspended if the court finds you mentally incompetent or a danger to yourself or others. That seems like a decent idea to me.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BEN: There's been talk about -- strong advocate of better security in schools. I went to a private school. And actually, my private school was nearly targeted by a mass shooter. Drove past our private school, targeting -- it was a Jewish school. Targeting the Jewish school. He saw there were armed guards. Or at least, he thought they were armed. He kept driving. He drove over to the West Valley HEP JTC, and shot that place up instead. That's because our school had hard security barriers, it had a certain number of security guards per number of students. There's bomb threats in our school every so often. Nobody at that school has ever been shot or killed on premises at least.

And it seems to me that we should be guarding our kids the same way that we guard our banks. All of this stuff I would assume should get wide agreement across the spectrum because it's relatively uncontroversial, that we should be protecting our schools in a better way. But the left doesn't want to discuss any of those things. Which demonstrates that there really is an agenda here, and the agenda has a lot less to defending schools and defending kids, and it has to do with a generalized gun control push that the left likes to engage in. And more importantly, the moral push that you are a bad human being if you disagree with them. Because again, this is what the Obama administration, in the early years, they had 60 votes in the Senate. They had the House. And they did nothing on gun control. Nothing. Because they knew the American people didn't want it.

And then as soon as the Republicans took back the house, suddenly it turned into, well, let's talk about gun control every single day and why Republicans are obstructionists, which says to me that this is a lot more about politicking than protection.

STU: Is their motivation to essentially get their base fired up. You're coming up to an election. They want all this new money coming in. And they don't necessarily want this money solved. (?) they don't have the argument anymore to take to their base.

BEN: Yeah, I think there's definitely some truth about that. I'm not going to say that their motive is awful and they don't care about kids. Or anything like that. (?) in the same way when they had the power to do so, because it was a valuable political tool for them, I think (?) if they do, number one, it's not going to stop the mass shootings. It's not going to. Not a single element they've proposed is going to minimize (?) which they proclaim they don't want. And so they would rather engine engine up the base for the elections. (?)

GLENN: So we are either going to revive the enlightenment, or we are going to tie in darkness. Which one wins?

BEN: You know, I'm -- I'm with you on this. I think the enlightenment -- there -- it's become a controversial proposition to say things like, use your reason instead of your emotion. And stem cell the truth instead of (?) and if those controversial propositions, we're in serious trouble. There are some of us who are obviously trying to fight back against us. There are some of us (?) I think one of the great debates that's happening right now, inside even the group of us that are pro-enlightenment is what roots have to be restored. Can you just (?) without restoring respect for Judeo-Christian values and thought. Can you just take the cherry on top of the Sunday. And then leave aside the religion and leave aside the (?) relearn all those things. That's right now happening among people on the right and the left. It's a debate that I think is happening between people like Jordan Peterson and Steven pinker, for example. But there must be (?) broad agreement that (?) I don't think there's even broad agreement that we're trying to get enlightenment mentality.

GLENN: Yeah, I'm reading Steven pinker's book right now. He is really -- you know, he makes a lot of good points. But the guy just does not like religion at all, to put it mildly.

And I -- you know, I think we dismiss rel because of its ills. And we -- we fail to recognize that it's set up for the very first time a real civil society, where we -- where we're able to search for truth.

BEN: 100 percent. I mean, this is one of my great critiques of pinker's book. (?) in a very substantial way. Not because I disagree with him about the value of reason. But that I think he has -- the materialist atheist movement has fundamentally undercut a lot of the contentions that they're seeking to support. You have an entire book by Pinker (?) enlightenment thinking. And that neglects 3,000 years of history. (?) can you actually rip away the (?) on the one hand and Greek thought on the other, just take those away. And suddenly the superstructure is supposed to stand. He'll talk about reason. He'll talk about the value of reason. He'll talk about the value of enlightenment. And not once in the entire book does he mention the revolution.

Well, you can't do that. If you're not going to mention the (?) French revolution. If you're not going to mention the progressives of the early 20th century. If you're not going to mention the risks that came along with the enlightenment, an alignment on traditional values and Greek (?) the notion that the universe has a purpose, that we can discover as individual human beings. If you remove all of that, then people (?) they think is based on reason pretty quickly. And that I think is what Pinker neglects. And and I think it's a problem for him. (?) we are balls of floating meat with no free will.

GLENN: That is exactly the case, as I understand it, that Nietzsche was making, when he said in a God was dead. Well, then who becomes God? What man -- and that was the beginning of this whole collective idea that led to mass murder.

BEN: Totally agree. And I think that, again, Pinker (?) what he fails to recognize is that Nietzsche was making a diagnosis, Nietzsche wasn't making a recommendation. And Nietzsche was looking at the enlightenment mentality, which said, we are smarter (?) and we've come up with our own reason, and that reason is going to die with us. The cult of reason was actually a cult in the French Revolution. The first official state rev (?) was the cult of reason. The goddess of reason. And, of course, that immediately devolves into people chopping their heads off.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

BEN: I'm all for reason. I love reason. The reason has to be undergirds. (?) that can either be found through nature and nature's God. Or it can be found in the revelatory dictates of violence by a religion.

GLENN: Thank you, Ben.

Ben Shapiro, the editor-in-chief of the daily wire.

TV

The ONLY Trump/Epstein Files Theories That Make Sense | Glenn TV | Ep 445

Is the case closed on Jeffrey Epstein and Russiagate? Maybe not. Glenn Beck pulls the thread on the story and its far-reaching implications that could expose a web of scandals and lead to a complete implosion of trust. Glenn lays out five theories that could explain Trump’s frustration over the Epstein files and why Glenn may never talk about the Epstein case again. Plus, Glenn connects the dots between the Russiagate hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, and the Steele dossier related to the FBI’s new “grand conspiracy” probe. It all leads to one James Bond-like villain: former CIA Director John Brennan. Then, Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer, tells Glenn why he believes his former boss Brennan belongs in prison and what must happen to prevent a full-blown trust implosion in American institutions.

RADIO

Rumors explained: Is Fed Chair Jerome Powell OUT?!

After rumors spread that President Trump would soon fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, Trump has said that he's "not planning" on it right now. But is it possible for Trump to fire him? Will he resign? And how is the Fed Chair even chosen in the first place? Glenn and his head researcher Jason Buttrill explain ...

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, last night, I was rapidly looking the lie some of these rumors, on X.

Pretty incredible people on what's going on with Jerome Powell and the fed.

What the heck?

I was actually popping popcorn and watching this. It was so crazy.

GLENN: So it's just the rumors, that he is going to be stepping down?

JASON: Well, yeah.

Yeah. Anna Paulina Luna. Congresswoman. She was saying, it was almost imminent, that he was about to be fired. Actually fired.

There were other rumors saying, well, we're not sure about fired.

But he's considering resigning.

GLENN: Yeah. You know why.

JASON: We were like, what the heck is going on?

GLENN: So do you know why?

Do you know why he's resigning? Any guesses? I mean, you had popcorn out. I would love to hear what you have come up with.

JASON: So there was the CPI stuff coming out. The interest rates going up.

We know that the President wants interest rates to come down. I'm assuming that is what the deal is, and there's some sort of internal battle going on.

GLENN: Well, and the president can't fire the Fed chief. Okay?

So the Fed chief is the one that nominated. The federal reserve is the biggest crock of bullcrap I've ever seen in my life.

It's nothing, but the five biggest banks. Okay? And you know which ones they are. They're the ones that keep getting bigger. And everybody else is falling to the wayside.

So the Federal Reserve is the arm of those five banks.

Okay?

And they suggest, who the president can select from.

So the president can't say, I don't want any of these guys. I want this guy. Can't do it.

He has to take a look at the list that all the banks have put together. Is. Say, pick from this list, Mr. President.

Did you know that?

JASON: It's kind of how Iran chooses their next president.

GLENN: It's exactly. It's exactly that way. Except, this religion is all about the almighty dollar.

Okay. So he can't -- he can't pick on his own. But the president has a right to pick one, you know, every term. If it comes up in his term.

The president wants this guy out. And I think he's been really, really bad.

Because he's been wrong on almost -- on almost everything. But show me the -- show me the Fed, you know, the guy who the Fed was right ever.

So he can't fire him. But he wants him out. Because he wants interest rates dropped.

And, you know, the jobs are coming back. Things are coming back.

But interest rates keep coming up.

And the -- and the interest rates, if we keep our interest rates high, we have a harder time borrowing money for our debt.

And it just gets more and more expensive for everybody all along. So the president wants him to back off interest rates. But the Fed chief believes that that could cause more inflation.

Which I think he's right on that one. And I hate to say he was right on anything.

Because I don't think he was ever right.

Makes me question myself. When he's like, well, I think he might have a point on that one. But the president is like, no. He can handle it.

I want them down. I want cheap money again.

He refuses. So what has the president done?

The president can only fire him, with cause!

So what do you do when you can only fire somebody with cause, and you want them out.

You find a cause, and this one is easy.

So the Fed has been the one leading the way saying, we can't keep borrowing money.

We've got to have some fiscal sanity. Right?

This is going to kill us. We have to keep these interest rates high, because you are borrowing too much money. And maybe this is the only way to stop you.

So we got to keep it high, because you've borrowed too much money. And how many times has he testified in front of Congress? We've got to cut. We've got to cut. You can't keep spending like this.

Okay? Well, did you know that the Federal Reserve, with our tax dollars, the five biggest banks, a/k/a the Federal Reserve, is redoing their offices. To the tune of two billion dollars!

Now, I don't know what kind of wallpaper they need there.

But that seems like a pretty hefty renovation, especially when everybody is looking at cutting things. And you're lecturing me about spending money. So they get money from the government, okay? They're telling us, stop spending.
Stop borrowing.

Except, okay. What you've borrowed. I need $2 billion of that, to redo our offices in Washington, DC.

Excuse me?

Why don't you do that yourself. Okay. I think banks maybe have some money.

So they're borrowing that money, and there's $700 million over.

So it's $2 billion. $700 million over budget. And they're still not finished.

And the problem is: They're putting in water features.

They have a rooftop garden they're building.

JASON: Okay.

GLENN: I mean, it is -- it's insane. The president now knows, really? You want to play this game with me. I will sit your ass down in front of Congress, and you answer to the American people, how you're lecturing us about spending. And you're putting in a rooftop garden and a water feature in your office. No! No.

So the president is now threatening, I'll fire you for this. You want to quit, now would be the time to quit.

Otherwise, I'm dragging your butt in front of Congress.

You answer to the American people for this. And they will beg me to fire you.

That's what's happening.

JASON: I looked at that a lot.

Because I was like. There's got to be some leverage that the president had, because they can't get rid of.

But that is a pretty big cut. That sounds like a Babylon Bee article. $2 billion.

GLENN: It does. It does. $2 billion, 700 million over budget.

JASON: Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: I mean, and these are the responsible bankers. No, I don't think so.

It just shows, they don't mean what they say. They'll just keep doing it for themselves. You know, if you really believed that America was really on that financial cliff, why would you do that?

You would lead the way and say, guys, we are going to be the only responsible ones here.

We will lead by example.

No renovation. You know what, go to IKEA?

You need a new desk. Go to IKEA, and get a new desk. Well, we have to keep up our image. We're not going to have a country.

So what do you say, we go to IKEA?

Our image should be, we are going to lead the way out of this madness!

That's what a leader would do.

JASON: So, Glenn, I still don't think I get this disconnect between Trump and Powell on -- we know Trump wants to lower interest rates.

Powell is standing back and saying, basically, he doesn't want to do it.

Is he trying to undermine President Trump on this?

GLENN: President Trump thinks so. President Trump thinks so.

I think so, to some degree.

I mean, I'm worried about inflation.

Look, you know what happened. Do you know what's happening with yap?

JASON: What's happening with Japan?

GLENN: So what's happening with Japan, is Japan has always had this really amazing image of, we're solid. We're absolutely solid.

This is target to crack. The foundation.

1989.

Let me go back to 1989.

This was the crown jury trial of the global economy.

Back in 1989, you probably aren't old enough to remember.

All of a sudden, Japan owned everything in America. We were just becoming Japanese, and everything was being purchased by Japan. Kind of like it feels a little bit like China now.

JASON: They even owned Nakatomi Plaza, Glenn, that Bruce Willis had to save -- they owned everything in every '80s movie!

GLENN: Oh, yeah, they owned absolutely everything.

Okay? And the -- things were so insane in Japan. The grounds of the imperial palace, in Tokyo, on paper was worth more than the entire value of the state of California.


JASON: Wow!

GLENN: Okay?

So their land. Everything just shot up. And so they had all of -- they were flush with all this cash.

And people believed that Japan had suddenly, you know, cracked the formula for, you know, eternal prosperity.

That's the problem. Then it all started to fall apart. And the asset prices. That they had mortgaged against.

Okay?

They had borrowed. Well, the imperial palace was worth more than California.

That doesn't make any sense. You wouldn't mortgage it like that. At least long-term. I will do this real quick, and pay it off.

You would never, ever mortgage, because you know that's inane. Well, nobody ever wanted -- and it seems in governments, nobody ever wants to believe that this is just a fluke. Okay?

So the asset prices collapse. The stock markets plunged. And for three decades, they have gone into this very polite political coma.

Okay? Economic coma. And so the central bank did something radical. They were the first ones to set your interest rate at zero. They lowered the interest rate. They made money so cheap, it was nearly free. Zero percent interest. Sometimes, they would pay you to take out money.

So the -- they had negative interest rates. Can you imagine that? Now, you're not fixing the problem. You're just printing wallpaper to cover the mold. All right?

So they've done this for decades.

Now their debt is I think 260. Or 280 percent of their GDP.

I think, what is ours?

100?

80 percent.

Something crazy. 120. You never believe back.

The death threshold is usually 120, 140.

They're 260 percent of their entire economy is debt.

That's not a crack. That's a fault line.

So this week. Or was it last week? Things started to creek and grown in Japan.

And the government bonds, which are like our treasuries. Is this getting too complex.

Are you following this still?

JASON: Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So their government bonds.

They were the safest investments on earth.

One of them. Okay?

It's us. Japan, Germany.

They started to fall.

Hard. And when bond prices fall, interest rates were the easily go up.

All right?

So they borrow all this money.

260 percent of their GDP is borrowed. Okay?

So they borrowed all of that money. And they had it at like 3 percent interest. Whatever.

2 percent interest.

And they were paying people.

2 percent.

Well, all of a sudden, the cracks started to appear. And people were like, I'm not sure this is stable at all.

And then the belief of the system started to -- to go away. So people started selling their Japanese bonds.

Once they do that, now the yields have to go up.

What happens when yields go up?

What happens when interest rates go up? For a government. You have to pay more interest on your debt!

Okay?

You add two or three points.

Just imagine, you have an adjustable rate. Okay?

This is a government having an adjustable rate. Except, they have 260 percent of everything they make, in debt!

And it's all leveraged.

And now, their adjustable goes up two, three, four points.

You're not able to afford that anymore, okay?

So massive problem.

Because what it really means is. People don't believe in Japan.

They know the con game is now over.

And investors are saying, you know, I want a whole lot more in return.

Because I just don't believe you anymore.

And it's not just Japan's problem. This is not a neighbor's house on fair.

This is -- imagine we're all living under the same roof. This is the neighbor's apartment, on fire.

We're all under the same roof. We all have the same foundation. And so when this happens to Japan, you should pay attention. And I'll show you the ripple effects in just a second.

First, let me tell you about Relief Factor. There comes a point where the pain in your life goes from being something that is just irritating to something you have to deal with every single day.

Maybe it starts small. A tweak in your back. A sore knee. A little stiffness in the morning. But, you know, those things happen. But over time, the playbook starts to make decisions for you. It changes how you move. How we sleep. What you say yes to. And what we have to start saying no to.

It steals moments from your life. Moments you just can't get back. Relief Factor is designed to help you take those moments back. It's 100 percent drug-free solution. Specifically formulated to fight the inflammation that's causing your pain. For thousands and thousands of people. It's helped reduce and eliminate the daily struggle. So they can get back to living the life they want, not the life their pain dictates. Pain may have changed your life, but it doesn't to have define it.

Get their three-week Quick Start. Give it a try now for 19.95. ReliefFactor.com. 800-4-Relief. 800-4-Relief. It's ReliefFactor.com. Ten-second station ID. We're back to the show.
(music)

GLENN: Okay. So now if Japan -- that means there's a stampede out of Japan.

And people are starting to look and reprice the risk of their money.

Now they're like, wait a minute.

The most stable. You know, if you're driving a car and it is the safest car in the world and all of a sudden, they just start blowing up on the highway.

You're like, I don't think that's the most -- that's the safest car on the highway.

And if that's the safest car, what does it mean for the car I'm in?

You know what I mean? So now, this is going to push US interest rates going up.

Which makes our mortgage rates go can up. And our car loans more expensive. And the national debt. Which is already costing us $1.2 trillion a year, just in interest.

Now, they can't sell their treasuries. People are skittish on treasuries. Maybe they come to the United States, but they're not so far.

They're getting out of the Japanese interest. Or the bonds there.

Japan has to pay their bills.

What do you do when you have to pay a bill?

And you don't have any money coming in.

You don't have enough money coming in. What do you do?

You sell something. Right? You sell your car. You sell something that you have of value.

Well, what do they have? What do they hold of value? US Treasuries.

So now, we are trying to sell our bonds, for our new debt, they hold our old debt.

They're saying, hey. Anybody want to buy this debt? Because I have to sell it. Fire sale. What do you give me for it?

Okay?

Which makes that debt more attractive, because they can get a better deal there.

Which means, if we want to have new debt, we have to raise our interest rates. Which means, we pay more for interest for our mortgages and everything else.

And it floods the market with bonds, crushing the prices, skyrocketing the costs for us.
And causing even more trouble, in other countries, that have US bonds. Because they start to look and go, nobody is buying these bonds.

Well, of course not. You have two countries. The two stablest countries besides Germany.

You have the two stablest countries now selling US Treasury bonds.

Okay? Really, really bad.

Now, let me add this on.

Germany is now having to pay for their own army.

And so they said, they're going to borrow money.

To build the army.

And they're going to lower their interest rate. So they can borrow more money. All right?

And now, the German bund, which is -- you know, like our Treasury. That's now starting to fall apart.

Well, Germany has some assets, they can sell.

What do you think that asset might be that they want to sell?

US treasuries.

We have been playing an extraordinarily horrible game.

This is why I believe the president wants somebody else in charge of the Fed, because the Fed can say, we're lowering the interest rates.

Because he's got to get more money into the system. So people can spend money, can start businesses. Borrow money.

Get things moving, so we can increase the amount of taxes that we collect.

The more people money -- the more people make, the more taxes we collect.

So he's like, we've got to grow the economy. And the only way we can grow the economy is to lower the interest rates.

But at the same time, interest rates around the world because of what's happening with the bonds is going through the roof.

We are in a very -- we've never been in this position before.

THE GLENN BECK PODCAST

Why the Term "Conspiracy Theory" is CIA-Created Weapon for Control

Conspiracies are of course real and occur every single day. But yet, many in the media and elite political circles attempt to use the term "conspiracy theory" to smear and discredit those who are skeptical of conventional narratives. Where did this term come from and how should we understand it? Journalist Alex Newman joins Glenn Beck to break this down and how it impacts the world as we see it today.

Watch Glenn Beck's FULL Interview with Journalist Alex Newman HERE

TV

Chalkboard Breakdown: How George Soros & the 'Deep State' funnel YOUR money to radical groups

Where do these massive left-wing radical groups get all their money from? Much of it is effectively a scam that occurs using your tax dollars to fund these groups that you would never support on your own. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to expose the connections so you can visualize exactly how someone like George Soros manipulates the system.

Watch the FULL Episode HERE: Deep State ON NOTICE: New Tech Traces the USAID, Globalist Money Trail