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.

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.

Glenn: Only Trump dared to deliver on decades of empty promises

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

The Islamic regime has been killing Americans since 1979. Now Trump’s response proves we’re no longer playing defense — we’re finally hitting back.

The United States has taken direct military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Whatever you think of the strike, it’s over. It’s happened. And now, we have to predict what happens next. I want to help you understand the gravity of this situation: what happened, what it means, and what might come next. To that end, we need to begin with a little history.

Since 1979, Iran has been at war with us — even if we refused to call it that.

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell.

It began with the hostage crisis, when 66 Americans were seized and 52 were held for over a year by the radical Islamic regime. Four years later, 17 more Americans were murdered in the U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, followed by 241 Marines in the Beirut barracks bombing.

Then came the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996, which killed 19 more U.S. airmen. Iran had its fingerprints all over it.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, Iranian-backed proxies killed hundreds of American soldiers. From 2001 to 2020 in Afghanistan and 2003 to 2011 in Iraq, Iran supplied IEDs and tactical support.

The Iranians have plotted assassinations and kidnappings on U.S. soil — in 2011, 2021, and again in 2024 — and yet we’ve never really responded.

The precedent for U.S. retaliation has always been present, but no president has chosen to pull the trigger until this past weekend. President Donald Trump struck decisively. And what our military pulled off this weekend was nothing short of extraordinary.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The strike was reportedly called Operation Midnight Hammer. It involved as many as 175 U.S. aircraft, including 12 B-2 stealth bombers — out of just 19 in our entire arsenal. Those bombers are among the most complex machines in the world, and they were kept mission-ready by some of the finest mechanics on the planet.

   USAF / Handout | Getty Images

To throw off Iranian radar and intelligence, some bombers flew west toward Guam — classic misdirection. The rest flew east, toward the real targets.

As the B-2s approached Iranian airspace, U.S. submarines launched dozens of Tomahawk missiles at Iran’s fortified nuclear facilities. Minutes later, the bombers dropped 14 MOPs — massive ordnance penetrators — each designed to drill deep into the earth and destroy underground bunkers. These bombs are the size of an F-16 and cost millions of dollars apiece. They are so accurate, I’ve been told they can hit the top of a soda can from 15,000 feet.

They were built for this mission — and we’ve been rehearsing this run for 15 years.

If the satellite imagery is accurate — and if what my sources tell me is true — the targeted nuclear sites were utterly destroyed. We’ll likely rely on the Israelis to confirm that on the ground.

This was a master class in strategy, execution, and deterrence. And it proved that only the United States could carry out a strike like this. I am very proud of our military, what we are capable of doing, and what we can accomplish.

What comes next

We don’t yet know how Iran will respond, but many of the possibilities are troubling. The Iranians could target U.S. forces across the Middle East. On Monday, Tehran launched 20 missiles at U.S. bases in Qatar, Syria, and Kuwait, to no effect. God forbid, they could also unleash Hezbollah or other terrorist proxies to strike here at home — and they just might.

Iran has also threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz — the artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil flows. On Sunday, Iran’s parliament voted to begin the process. If the Supreme Council and the ayatollah give the go-ahead, we could see oil prices spike to $150 or even $200 a barrel.

That would be catastrophic.

The 2008 financial collapse was pushed over the edge when oil hit $130. Western economies — including ours — simply cannot sustain oil above $120 for long. If this conflict escalates and the Strait is closed, the global economy could unravel.

The strike also raises questions about regime stability. Will it spark an uprising, or will the Islamic regime respond with a brutal crackdown on dissidents?

Early signs aren’t hopeful. Reports suggest hundreds of arrests over the weekend and at least one dissident executed on charges of spying for Israel. The regime’s infamous morality police, the Gasht-e Ershad, are back on the streets. Every phone, every vehicle — monitored. The U.S. embassy in Qatar issued a shelter-in-place warning for Americans.

Russia and China both condemned the strike. On Monday, a senior Iranian official flew to Moscow to meet with Vladimir Putin. That meeting should alarm anyone paying attention. Their alliance continues to deepen — and that’s a serious concern.

Now we pray

We are either on the verge of a remarkable strategic victory or a devastating global escalation. Time will tell. But either way, President Trump didn’t start this. He inherited it — and he took decisive action.

The difference is, he did what they all said they would do. He didn’t send pallets of cash in the dead of night. He didn’t sign another failed treaty.

He acted. Now, we pray. For peace, for wisdom, and for the strength to meet whatever comes next.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

   Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

 

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.