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

Santorum speaks to Glenn about his surge in Iowa

January 03, 2012
Wilson

Writer

One man who has experienced a sudden surge in Iowa the past few days has been Rick Santorum, a candidate that Glenn has praised in the past. In fact, Glenn said that the two candidates he would vote for today would be Santorum and Bachmann, with Bachmann narrowly ahead of Santorum. Apparently others are realizing the value of a Rick Santorum as he is currently in the top three contenders in the polls alongside Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.

Read the transcript below:

GLENN: Today live from Dallas, Texas, the Lone Star state, tonight we begin our broadcast from GBTV on our brand new sound stage. We will show it to you. But today all eyes are on Iowa. That's why new frontrunner or the guy surging, Rick Santorum is on with us, now.

VOICE: Things are going back in a very healthy direction.

GLENN: Rick Santorum in Iowa, I think he could win tonight. I think it's because we didn't endorse him.

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: Whenever that happens, they surge ahead. It is Rick Santorum, a good friend, a good friend of the program and a guy who is probably the strongest on the Middle East out there. Rick, how are you, sir?

SANTORUM: I'm doing great, Glenn. Thanks so much for having me on and thanks for all of the help that you've given me by giving me the opportunity to come on your program and for saying the kind things you have about me. I appreciate it very much.

GLENN: I will tell you this: We gave the opportunity to Newt Gingrich and it's really what you do with the time.

PAT: (Laughing).

GLENN: Rick, I want to ask

SANTORUM: Okay. I'll leave it at that.

GLENN: Yeah. I want to ask you a couple of a couple of tough questions because and you know that I'm your friend and I hope we're friends forever, but we're not electing a friend. We're electing the president of the United States and if you can't handle the Glenn Beck program, you know, what are you going to do. You shouldn't be the president of the United States. So let me ask you some tough questions. You supported Pat Toomey

PAT: No. Other way around.

GLENN: No, no.

SANTORUM: No. Other way around.

GLENN: Yeah, Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey. What the hell is wrong with you?

PAT: (Laughing.) That's about as direct as it gets right there.

SANTORUM: I like you know, when I was right after that happened in Pennsylvania, the question I got more than "how are you today" was "Why are you support Specter." And the answer to that question is it's a little complex but it's I did it because I thought it was in the best interest of the cause I believed in. As you know, Glenn, the most powerful branch of government unfortunately today is the is the judiciary and the Supreme Court and we were the 51/49 majority at the time in the United States Senate and President Bush was running for reelection and we believed there would be two and maybe even three Supreme Court nominees and Arlen Specter was slated to be chairman of the judiciary committee. Specter as you know from the days of Bork and Thomas was really the decider. If Specter supported the candidate for the court, he would pass. If he didn't, they wouldn't. That's because moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats basically followed his lead. And he came to me at the end of the campaign and asked for help. I had not been active in the campaign at all and he asked for help and I said, you know, Arlen, I've got concerns. I said, you're going to be chairman of the judiciary committee. He said I said, I'm not comfortable. He said, well, he says, I'll support whatever nominee the president puts up as long as I'm properly consulted as chairman of the committee and I'll make sure those nominations get through. And for me two to three Supreme Court justices for 30 years on the court was probably the most important thing we could have gotten out of that election. We had a 51 49 majority. Specter would hold onto the seat and guarantee the Supreme Court. We got Roberts, and I all the folks listening, go and read the reports. Read the news stories when Justice Alito's confirmation. There were repeated series of attacks on Alito. Every single time those attacks were waged, Arlen Specter was the first guy to jump up and knock them down. And I can say without question that Alito would not be on the court. It was a close vote. He would not have been on the court and we would not have a 5 4, well well, at least four and a half strong conservatives on that court right now and Alito being one of the best of them. So I

GLENN: Okay. All right. You're pissing me off because I really

SANTORUM: I made a decision which I felt was best. And let me just say this, Glenn. I knew it would cost I knew people would question me saying, oh, you're selling out, you're being for the liberal guy. No, I was being for what I thought was in the best interest of our country and I was willing to take the heat and continue to take the heat for doing so.

GLENN: Okay.

PAT: But it was based solely on Supreme Court decisions? Because the guy is not a conservative like you are.

SANTORUM: No, he's no, look, he's not a conservative.

PAT: No.

SANTORUM: That, you know, he did support some things and changed his opinion. He supported the partial birth abortion ban which he know he hadn't in the past and, you know, I will say that when I asked him for his help and support on key issues, most of the time he did help us out. But look, I understand this was going to be a he's not a conservative. I mean, I agree with that. I mean, he eventually switched to become a Democrat.

GLENN: He was a Democrat in the beginning.

PAT: But

PAT: I didn't leave the Republican Party, Glenn. The Republican Party left me.

STU: Rick, this is interesting because I think I understand your point on the Supreme Court and I think it's valid and Bush was fantastic

GLENN: It is.

STU: with Supreme Court justices. But isn't the point that isn't your point for endorsing Specter there because you believe he was more electable than Toomey who is the conservative, which is the same point people make against you with Romney now?

GLENN: No. No, he's not making that.

SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying that. Look, I don't know, Pat Toomey might have been able to won, he might not have been. Certainly would have been harder. You know, Bush lost the State of Pennsylvania that year in 2004. He lost it by 2 or 3 points. You know, Pat Toomey didn't get elected to the Senate. But I was got elected in the Senate, a pretty good year for Republican which 2004 was not. And the gubernatorial candidates for Pennsylvania, our candidate for governor who led the ticket like Bush would have won by 10 and Pat won by 1. So, you know, I don't know whether he would have won or not but it would have been certainly a much harder race. I don't think there's any question about that. And with a one seat majority, I was looking for something where I could, if I could say, look, by supporting Specter, we could guarantee Supreme Court nominees, that's a pretty good that's a pretty good reason to support someone in my opinion.

GLENN: Okay. Rick, earmarks.

SANTORUM: Yeah.

GLENN: You've defended Rick Perry brought this up and you defended earmarks. How can you possibly

SANTORUM: Yeah, what I said was that for 200 plus years in American history, if you look at the Constitution, Glenn, the Constitution says that the congress shall appropriate money. The congress is supposed to spend money, not the president. The congress spends this money. What happened was there was abuse. And there was abuse that led to higher spending. And when and people justifiably got upset. But the idea that congress shouldn't allocate money is against what the Constitution, in fact, requires the congress to do. What happened is that congress were using earmarks to get folks to vote for higher spending, which is what exploded this deficit in the last few years after I left the United States Senate. And so what I've said is

GLENN: No, no, no, no. No, no, no.

SANTORUM: That when that happened and Pat Toomey tied together what?

GLENN: No, no. No, no. I'm not going to let you get away I'm not going to let you get away with, "And then I left the Senate and spending was..." spending has been out of control for 20, 30 years.

SANTORUM: I would agree, but it's look at the rates of spending in discretionary accounts in Washington over the past 15 years and you will see, you know, low single digit increases in discretionary spending up until the time Obama came in and they exploded. And that's when people got all bent out of shape about earmarks and there was a rally, legitimately so to end it because they were being used to get people to vote for that higher spending. So look, I've said I'll support a ban of earmarks, and I do support a ban of earmarks. I will say that Jim DeMint who led this charge also supported earmarks. Ron Paul supported earmarks. Because, in fact, I don't know of too many people who didn't do earmarks because all of us thought it was our responsibility under the Constitution and representing our several states to make sure that when federal dollars were spent, they were allocated equally among the states as our job was to do.

GLENN: All right. You are and I've said this for years. You're probably the only guy that really I can't say that. You're one of the leaders on really understanding what is happening in the Middle East, what we face, the threat from Iran. We've talked about this, Rick, for what? Five years, seven years?

SANTORUM: Oh, more than that, Glenn. We've been talking about it since, I remember at least 2005 and maybe before.

GLENN: Yeah. So we I mean, we've been talking about this for a very long time. You knew who the twelfth imam was before anybody knew who it was. However, let me go here: I saw that you which I agree with. I saw that you said this weekend that you would launch a strike against Iran if they have nuclear weapons. They're in the straits of

SANTORUM: Well, no, I said I would launch a

GLENN: Make sure they don't.

SANTORUM: Look, I laid out a variety of things that I would do. And I said if all those things failed, then you have to set an ultimatum and say that, you know, we can't have a policy, Glenn, that says Iran shouldn't get a nuclear weapon and then don't do anything to stop them from getting it.

GLENN: Correct.

SANTORUM: That is the paper tiger and weakness because as you know, as you know the Middle East, the weak course is not one that's particularly well respected.

GLENN: No.

SANTORUM: And so when you say that you have a policy, which we do, which every presidential candidate does except Ron Paul that says that Iran should not get a nuclear weapon, then you better have a policy that, you know, actually tactical things that you're going to do to make sure that doesn't happen.

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: And I laid them out in sequence. The last of the sequence was if all else fails, then we have to be very public that we will work with the State of Israel and that we will use whatever force is necessary, air strikes, to degrade those facilities.

GLENN: Okay.

SANTORUM: Before they get a nuclear weapon.

GLENN: Here's the here's the thing. We are stretched so thin financially.

SANTORUM: We will be stretched even more thin if Iran has a nuclear weapon, Glenn, and starts launching attacks in the Middle East, against the State of Israel, in this country. You think the economy's struggling now, just wait until we have a series of terrorist attacks because Iran will feel impervious to being attacked because they have a nuclear weapon.

GLENN: I know.

SANTORUM: That is something that

GLENN: You and I, Rick, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I cannot there is a strong part of me that says enough of the wars. Enough of the wars. What are we fighting? Five wars right now?

SANTORUM: We're trying to prevent a war here. We're trying to prevent one of the most nefarious the most nefarious regime in the entire world from you know, this is the equivalent as you know, Glenn, you know this. This is the equivalent of Al Qaeda or maybe even worse than Al Qaeda being in control of a country with enormous resources and capability.

GLENN: No, this is Hitler.

SANTORUM: We're trying to prevent them from having the failsafe so they can go out and reign terror around the world.

GLENN: The the idea that Iran is in the Straits of Hormuz right now firing missiles

SANTORUM: They think we're weak. They think we won't do anything. They're testing. They continue to prod, poke and test the will of the American president and he continues to show that he is going to be complacent and allow them to have their way. That's what this president has shown from the attempted attacks here in this country on a Saudi ambassador, the improvised explosive devices that have been used for years now to kill our troops that are manufactured in Iran. Iran as you saw on the front page of the Washington Post yesterday with and you've talked about this on your program with its influence now growing in Central and South America, we can sit on the sidelines and say, well, we'll just, you know, we'll let them go ahead and do this because we're tired of war. And then we will really be tired of war because it will be on our shores.

PAT: For so long now we've been asking you how you turn this thing around from the 1 to 2% that you were receiving and now here you are suddenly surging. This has got to feel pretty good. You are at 15% according to the latest poll. You have a real legitimate shot at winning this. This would really give you a shot in the arm if you finish in, I'd say the top three, wouldn't it?

SANTORUM: Yeah, I think the top three is what we're shooting for. I mean, obviously 10, 12 days ago we were in last place and we were getting the question that we got here on the program last time I was on: What's wrong with you, Rick? I mean, you're not doing anything, it's not happening. I'd like to support you, but... and I've always said, you know, I'm going to go out and do what I've done here, Glenn. I mean, I love you, I really do. I love you as a brother and I agree with you on 90 plus percent of the things but, you know, what, Glenn, when we disagree, I'm not going to sugar coat it to you. I'm going to tell you exactly what I believe and I respect the fact that, you know, you have a different opinion on things but I also respect you enough to be able to tell you, you know, that I what I think and lay it all out there. And the people of Iowa, I've heard this repeatedly. They said, you know what, I don't agree with you on everything but I think you are an honest guy, you actually are saying what you believe is the right thing to do, and I trust you. And nobody I mean, we can't all run for president. Therefore there's no perfect candidate. And so you take what you think is the best and when you disagree, you at least understand that they are doing it for the reasons they believe in their heart is the right thing to do. And that's what I'm trying to lay out here in Iowa, and the people of Iowa have responded to it.

GLENN: Good luck tonight, Rick. Good luck.

SANTORUM: Thank you, my friend, and I really appreciate it. By the way, I do appreciate, I mean this all sincerity. I appreciate you asking me the tough questions and the things that we disagree on because, you know, if you don't put those out there, then people can go and think what they want. And there are disagreements but I hope you believe as I hope you know this

GLENN: I wouldn't

SANTORUM: I'm doing it because I do believe it's the best thing for the country.

GLENN: I wouldn't lose a second of time worrying about what you were doing behind anybody's back or behind closed doors. Not one second of time would I worry about that.

SANTORUM: Thank you, my friend.

GLENN: God bless you.

SANTORUM: And if you go to RickSantorum.com and help us out, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Tesla attacks: Glenn exposes the Left’s EV terrorism

Kansas City Star / Contributor | Getty Images

Across the country, Teslas are being torched by the very people who, just a few years ago, championed them as the future of sustainable transportation.

Recently, Glenn highlighted the heinous actions targeting Tesla owners and dealerships. He reached the same conclusion as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi: these are acts of domestic terrorism. Tesla owners are being doxxed; a dealership in Las Vegas was firebombed, vandalized, and shot at. Similar attacks have struck South Carolina, Oregon, and Colorado, where Molotov cocktails destroyed multiple Tesla vehicles.

But this isn’t really about cars—it’s a symptom of a deeper rot that has eroded any principles the Left once held. Just as they celebrated the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the attacks on Tesla reflect a lust for destruction—a self-righteous anger that disregards decency and the sanctity of life.

For them, the ends justify the means.

A Pattern of Lawlessness

Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

The attacks on Tesla owners and dealerships aren’t random; they form an emerging pattern that exposes the Left’s true motives.

A quick look at the alleged grievances of the protesters, vandals, and arsonists harassing electric vehicles and their owners reveals a thin veneer masking their deeds. Their motives range from semi-rational—disagreeing with Elon Musk’s actions and the goals of DOGE —to outlandish, like labeling Musk a Nazi or fascist. Yet, rational or not, their actions far outweigh the severity of their complaints. Their crimes include keying and spray-painting privately owned Teslas, vandalizing dealerships (including firing rounds into a Tesla service center in Las Vegas), and using Molotov cocktails to ignite Teslas in cities nationwide. As noted, these aren’t the acts of disgruntled voters but of domestic terrorists.

Glenn recently tied this Tesla terrorism to the brutal murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last December. Just as liberals rejoice over burning Teslas today, they cheered when Thompson was gunned down in New York’s streets, leaving his children fatherless days before Christmas. Much like the Tesla attacks, the Left justified their jubilation with half-baked critiques of the U.S. healthcare system, sandwiched between callous jokes about the slain CEO. It’s not about cars or insurance—it runs deeper.

Hypocrisy Exposed

TOBIAS SCHWARZ / Contributor | Getty Images

Rules for thee, not for me.

This theme keeps resurfacing. Remember when the Left was obsessed with climate change? “It’s the biggest threat to humanity,” they declared, warning we couldn’t drive cars or eat beef because their emissions would doom us all. They once praised Musk, hailing Tesla as the future of transportation. But now that Musk defies their ever-shifting liberal orthodoxy, Tesla must die—environment be damned. It’s a replay of the pandemic’s peak: while they preached staying home, wearing double masks, keeping six feet apart, and “following the science,” they burned, looted, and rioted through nearly every major U.S. city—rules for thee, not for me.

Owning a Tesla no longer earns eco-warrior cred—it marks you as a closet Nazi, liable to get your car keyed. The same crowd that once fretted over cow farts endangering the planet now sets electric cars ablaze. One can hardly imagine that the fumes from hundreds of pounds of burning lithium, plastic, and chemicals in a Tesla are eco-friendly.

Tyranny of Anger

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

What’s the takeaway? What’s the common thread?

The Left isn’t bound by values—not even their own. Nothing is sacred to them; destruction is all they crave. Climate change, the sanctity of life, and “following the science” are mere excuses for outrage, discarded when they obstruct their lust to destroy. Their twisted ideology preaches that building, improving, or creating is evil—only taking and tearing down matter. They seethe at the sight of creation. From Tesla’s burning hulks to Thompson’s blood on the pavement, their anger trumps your rights every time.

Glenn has been warning of the collapse of our common values for years. If we don’t fight this moral rot and defend the values that built America—law, life, liberty—we’ll lose them to the flames of their rage.

Grim truth behind Mexico's death camps and cult of Santa Muerte

ULISES RUIZ / Contributor | Getty Images

Behind the iron gates of Izaguirre Ranch lie buried horrors that reveal the heinous acts committed within its boundaries.

Over the weekend, the volunteer group Buscadores Guerreros de Jalisco Collective, dedicated to finding missing people, uncovered human remains at the now-abandoned ranch after receiving a tip about a mass grave. Their grim discovery included more than 200 pairs of shoes, clothes, suitcases, farewell letters, and children’s toys buried among cremation ovens and fire-scorched bone fragments. No official count of victims has been released, nor have any bodies been identified, but the sheer volume of artifacts suggests hundreds may lie within the mass grave. Perhaps most disturbing is that local police raided the ranch just months earlier, in September 2024, making arrests and freeing two hostages—yet failed to detect (or deliberately ignored) the gruesome scene beneath their feet.

Earlier this week Glenn covered this story on air and explained that this is the sad reality in Mexico: missing people and mass graves are becoming normalized. Since 2006, more than 90,000 individuals have vanished, with cartels and other malicious groups presumed responsible. The Mexican government offers little help, often conspiring with these cartels to perpetrate and conceal these crimes.

Mexico is being devoured by a festering evil within its borders. No longer the land of tacos and beaches, it’s a place where the dead don’t rest, and the living can’t escape.

The Death Camps

HERIKA MARTINEZ / Contributor | Getty Images

The full scale of the atrocities at Izaguirre Ranch may never be known. It’s believed the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) used the site as a training facility for recruits. The role of the victims buried there remains unclear, but their fate was undoubtedly nightmarish.

Izaguirre is not an isolated case. In 2022, an abandoned house near Nuevo Laredo was found concealing charred human remains, with one room blanketed by two feet of compacted ashes and bone fragments. In 2009, a man in Baja California nicknamed “Pozolero” or “The Stewmaker,” confessed to dissolving up to 300 bodies in lye for his drug-lord boss, disposing of the remains in dumps or graves—a task he wasn’t alone in performing.

These sites are just the beginning. Dozens of similar mass graves have been identified across Mexico. This isn’t the mark of a healthy country—it’s a hallmark of nations engulfed in war or gripped by dark forces. The Mexican government has lost control, leaving chaos to reign.

The Corruption

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Does anyone in Mexico’s government still serve its people?

The scale of these atrocities can’t be dismissed as mere incompetence—complicity is evident. From local police overlooking the mass grave at Izaguirre Ranch to active conspiracy with cartels, such as in the case of a 2014 mass abduction, the evidence is damning. In 2014, 43 students in Guerrero were abducted and presumed killed, with independent investigations implicating police, military, and courts in the crime.

Glenn has uncovered further proof of corruption: the Mexican military is arming the cartels. An ATF whistleblower recently revealed that, despite Mexico’s claims that U.S. manufacturers supply cartel weapons, these firearms are first sold to the Mexican military by the U.S. government—only to be resold to the cartels. Add to this countless bribes and hush money, and it’s clear why Mexico’s soft stance has allowed cartels to seize control of the country.

The Cult of Death

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Perhaps the most terrifying sign of Mexico’s collapse is the rise of the Santa Muerte cult, or “Holy Death.” This cult venerates a skeletal figure—often robed in red or black, wielding a scythe and scales—promising protection amid Mexico’s harsh realities. Since the early 2000s, Santa Muerte has grown to seven million followers. Once a fringe belief, it’s now a mainstream force, filling the void left by a government too weak to shield its people.

While this mass embrace of death worship is alarming, its adoption by cartels is horrifying. Rather than seeking protection from violence, cartels offer bloody sacrifices to Santa Muerte—pyramids of burnt heads, ritual disembowelments, and grisly rites—to embolden their atrocities.

Temples and altars honoring death dot the landscape, signaling the decay of Mexico’s soul. This isn’t just superstition—it’s a dark religion fueling a nation’s descent into chaos.

Conclusion

Mass graves, corrupt officials, and a death cult are not anomalies—they’re symptoms of a failed state. Mexico’s government has ceded power to cartels, leaving its people trapped in a nightmare. As Glenn has warned, this isn’t just a distant tragedy—it’s a wake-up call for Americans. This isn’t just an issue south of the border; it’s a warning to America about the cost of ignoring evil at our doorstep.

Trump's 3 BIGGEST border victories

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

The Southern Border is healing!

Just hours after his inauguration on January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border. A little over a month later, the tide of migrants pouring into the United States has been significantly stemmed. Trump is delivering on his major campaign promises: stopping illegal crossings, rolling back Biden-era border policies, and using every available resource to fortify the border against future challenges.

In his recent congressional speech, Trump highlighted these border security successes—achievements often overshadowed by the flood of other news stories this past month. To spotlight this monumental progress, we’ve compiled a list of Trump’s three most significant border victories.

1. Significantly reduced border encounters

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

When Trump took office, it was clear—the sheriff was back in town. According to the Department of Homeland Security, daily border encounters have plummeted by 93 percent since his inauguration. Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has ramped up its efforts: in the past month alone, ICE doubled arrests of criminal aliens and tripled apprehensions of fugitives at large. This dramatic shift stems from reinstating strict border policies, restoring common-sense enforcement, and unleashing the full capabilities of ICE and Border Patrol.

2. Major policy changes

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump has also made sweeping strides in border policy. He reinstated the “Remain in Mexico” policy, requiring immigrants to wait in Mexico during their immigration proceedings instead of being released into the U.S. He also terminated the controversial “catch and release” practice, which had allowed millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country pending court dates. Additionally, Trump signed the Laken Riley Act, mandating detention for all illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes.

Another key victory was designating cartels like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua as terrorist organizations. This classification empowers law enforcement and border agencies to tackle these ruthless gangs with the seriousness and resources they demand.

3. Deployed major muscle

John Moore / Staff | Getty Images

Trump is doubling down on border security—and he’s not holding back. He deployed 1,500 U.S. troops to secure the southern border and restarted construction of the border wall. Among the forces sent is a Stryker Brigade, a rapid-response, high-tech mechanized infantry unit equipped with armored ground and air vehicles. This brigade’s mobility and long-range capabilities make it ideal for patrolling the rugged, remote stretches of the border.

Fort Knox exposed: Is America's gold MISSING?

Christopher Furlong / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump promised that we would get a peek inside Fort Knox, but are we ready for what we might find?

In this new era of radical transparency, the possibility that the Deep State's darkest secrets could be exposed has many desperate for answers to old questions. Recently, Glenn has zeroed in on gold, specifically America's gold reserves, which are supposed to be locked away inside the vaults of Fort Knox. According to the government, there are 147.3 million ounces of gold stored within several small secured rooms that are themselves locked behind a massive 22 ton vault door, but the truth is that no one has officially seen this gold since 1953. An audit is long overdue, and President Trump has already shown interest in the idea.

America's gold reserve has been surrounded by suspicion for the better part of a hundred years. It all started in 1933, when FDR effectivelynationalized the United States's private gold stores, forcing Americans to sell their gold to the government. This gold was melted down, forged into bars, and stored in the newly constructed U.S. Bullion Depository building at Fort Knox. By 1941, Fort Knox had held 649.6 million ounces of gold—which, you may have noticed, was 502.3 million ounces more than today. We'll come back to that.

By 1944, World War II was ending, and the Allies began planning how to rebuild Europe. The U.N. held a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the USD was established as the world's reserve currency. This meant that any country (though not U.S. citizens) could exchange the USD for gold at the fixed rate of $35 per ounce. Already, you can see where our gold might have gone.

Jump to the 1960s, where Lyndon B. Johnson was busy digging America into a massive debt hole. Between the Vietnam War and Johnson's "Great Society" project, the U.S. was bleeding cash and printing money to keep up. But now Fort Knox no longer held enough physical gold to cover the $35 an ounce rate promised by the Bretton Woods agreement. France took notice of this weakness and began to redeem hundreds of millions of dollars. In the 70s Nixon staunched this gushing wound by halting foreign nations from redeeming dollars for gold, but this had the adverse effect of ending the gold standard.

This brings us to the present, where inflation is through the roof, no one knows how much gold is actually inside Fort Knox, and someone in America has been buying a LOT of gold. Who is buying this gold? Where is it going and for what purpose? Glenn has a few ideas, and one of them is MUCH better than the other:

The path back to gold

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

One possibility is that all of this gold that has been flooding into America is in preparation for a shift back to a gold-backed, or partial-gold-backed system. The influx of gold corresponds with a comment recently made by Trump's new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, who said he was going to:

“Monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people.”

Glenn pointed out that per a 1972 law, the gold in Fort Knox is currently set at a fixed value of $42 an ounce. At the time of this writing, gold was valued at $2,912.09 an ounce, which is more than a 6,800 percent increase. If the U.S. stockpile was revalued to reflect current market prices, it could be used to stabilize the dollar. This could even mean a full, or partial return to the gold standard, depending on the amount of gold currently being imported.

Empty coffers—you will own nothing

Raymond Boyd / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, Glenn suspects there is another, darker purpose behind the recent gold hubbub.

As mentioned before, the last realaudit of Fort Knox was done under President Eisenhower, in 1953. While the audit passed, a report from the Secretary of the Treasury revealed that a mere 13.6 percent was checked. For the better part of a century, we've had no idea how much gold is present under Fort Knox. After the gold hemorrhage in the 60s, many were suspicious of the status of our gold supply. In the 80s, a wealthy businessman named Edward Durell released over a decade's worth of research that led him to conclude that Fort Knox was all but empty. In short, he claimed that the Federal Reserve had siphoned off all the gold and sold it to Europe.

What would it mean if America's coffers are empty? According to a post by X user Matt Smith that Glenn shared, empty coffers combined with an influx of foreign gold could represent the beginning of a new, controlled economy. We couldstill be headed towards a future where you'll ownnothing.