Glenn Beck explains anti-war stance on Syria; why involvement is 'suicidal'

by Glenn Beck

The anti-war Glenn Beck?

I’ll admit it doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. After all, I used to be guy on the sidelines cheering the ‘freedom on the march’ argument every time a President wanted to lob missiles or put boots on the ground somewhere.

But that all changed for me several years ago when I began to realize this democracy building mentality was a progressive mentality. Discovering the progressive strain of politics existed was a major pivot point in my life. I’m really big on pivot points – if you have a major change on an issue it should be accompanied by something so memorable you remember ever detail in the room when you discovered it. I remember being our Radio City studios when I heard Hillary Clinton explain she didn’t like to be called liberal but preferred being called an early 20th century progressive. I started researching and my eyes were opened to the fact that progressives were marching forward while regular liberals and conservatives were simply being used. That’s my pivot point and the main reason why I’m against war in Syria today.

I want to address everyone making the opposite argument today than they did ten years ago:

Why have you switched?

Are you doing it merely because of politics or because of loyalty to Obama? Have you had an honest pivot point?

Too much is at stake to not know or admit the honest answer to this question. You may disagree with me on almost everything I say – that’s fine -- but I defy you to look at the facts of Syria and come away concluding this is something America should be engaging in.

War with Syria is suicidal and here are just a few reasons why.

China’s Foreign Minister said American should ‘think thrice’ before acting and exercise ‘extreme caution’ in what is a clear declaration of support for Assad’s regime. Russia has unabashedly come to the aid of Assad by sending a steady stream of weapons and recently they bolstered their naval presence near the Syrian coast with a missile cruiser and a destroyer among other ships. Iran, of course, has vowed to support Syria ‘to the end’ in the face of possibly military strikes from the United States.

Since the Arab Spring the Middle East has come unraveled – something that didn’t seem possible given its already volatile nature. Egypt is on the verge of civil war, Libya is suffering in lawless ruin, and Syria is mired in a deadly civil war that’s killed hundreds of thousands of people. The Assad regime, the radical terrorists fighting against Assad, and the Obama administration itself all admit a limited and measured strike from the United States will neither end the civil war nor change regimes.

So why bother doing it? What is this really all about? Here are a few of the keys:

  • Assad saw what happened in Egypt and Libya and he’s making sure he does not suffer the same fate. He’s a dictator desperately trying to hold onto his power through any means possible.
  • Iran doesn’t have many allies around the world, but Syria is one of them. Iran depends on Syria to funnel weapons to terrorist organization Hezbollah, whose main base of operation is in Lebanon. Hezbollah views any threat to the Assad regime as a threat to Palestinians and Lebanon.
  • Syria hosts a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean and Russia needs the access to warm water ports or else they are either land locked or ice locked.
  • Another major factor is oil & natural gas. Syria is one of the most strategic places for pipelines to flow into Europe. Qatar proposed a massive pipeline that would weave through Syria, but Assad turned that down in 2009 and instead partnered up with Russia and Iran to get the pipeline, which is due to open in 2016.

When questioned about the high cost of the war, Secretary of State John Kerry assured Americans by saying Arab nations have agreed to fund the entire cost of the war. Certainly this isn’t out of the kindness of their hearts or because they enjoy the United States getting militarily involved in Middle Eastern affairs – it’s because there’s a boat load of money at stake. If you want to figure out which side of the Syria conflict a particular nation is on, just figure out if they benefit or are harmed by the ‘Islamic pipeline’ and you’ll likely have your answer.

But there is another factor at play: destabilization.

I’ve talked a lot about the Archduke Ferdinand moment. When Archduke Ferdinand (of Austria-Hungary) was assassinated in Bosnia in 1914 it triggered a chain reaction that ultimately led to World War I.

Here’s what happened:

  • Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist who was protesting Austria-Hungary’s control over Bosnia. Serbia at the time was trying to gain control over Bosnia.
  • Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.
  • Russia mobilized to give military aid to Serbia, an ally.
  • Germany then declared war on Russia.

When a Tunisian fruit cart vendor set himself on fire in protest and died, the President likened his actions to that of Rosa Parks. High praise considering Parks helped spark one of the most important civil rights movements in history. I didn’t see it that way –I saw it as 1914 all over again and another chance for extremists to attempt to redraw the map through war.

I believe I was right.

We all know the powerful images and the message of peaceful protest that came out of the civil rights movement. What has come from the Tunisian fruit cart vendor?

We have not seen peaceful marches – we’ve seen the violent overthrow of governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen. We’ve seen devastating civil war in Syria for over two and a half years and hundreds of thousands of people dead. We’ve seen radical Islamists murdering Christians and eating the hearts out of their sworn enemy on videotape. We’ve seen American journalists raped in the streets, Priests beheaded, scores of civilians brutally executed in the streets. We’ve seen Russia, Iran, China, and the United States preparing and posturing for war on a global scale.

I’m having a really hard time finding Rosa Parks anywhere near this colossal mess.

It isn’t some political game for us to get involved in so those who have made threats can save a little face. ‘Limited’ and ‘measured’ means nothing to the family whose home was just obliterated by a stray bomb. It means nothing to the Christians, the moderate Muslims, the homosexuals, the atheists, or anyone else who won’t submit to the will of a dictator or the dictates of Sharia Law under radical Islamic rule. Try this - put yourself in the shoes of the typical woman in Syria. Are they excited about the prospect of United States military strikes? What is the best possible outcome for them?

First they have to survive the bombings. If they manage to accomplish that, they’ll face one of two scenarios. Either Assad remains in power and they have to live in fear of government crackdowns OR Assad is ousted and the people are forced to live under radical Islamic rule and the harsh conditions of Sharia Law.

The cost of getting involved is far too high and it’s the people of Syria are the ones who will pay the price. It will eventually cost all citizens of the globe as it will put us another step closer to World War III.

And for what? America to save face? To secure pipelines?

The time for politics and party loyalty is over. Do your own homework. If you just take the administration’s word for it (or John McCain or John Boehner or Lindsey Graham’s for that matter) that it’s ‘slam dunk’ case, I believe you are part of the problem. Likewise, if you are against it just because I said so but you really don’t know why – you are part of the problem too. You are stopping, dare I say it – progress.

If we continue to allow others to dictate our thinking then we deserve what we reap.

But the innocent people who will suffer in the Middle East do not.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."

What happened?

MSNBC's Katy Tur didn't bother to hide her pro-gun control bias in an interview with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the wake of the Santa Fe High School killings.

RELATED: Media Are Pushing Inflated '18 School Shootings' Statistic. Here Are the Facts.

What did she ask?

As Pat pointed out while sitting in for Glenn on today's show, Tur tried to “badger" Paxton into vowing that he would push for a magical fix that will make schools “100 percent safe." She found it “just wild" that the Texas attorney general couldn't promise that schools will ever be completely, totally safe.

“Can you promise kids in Texas today that they're safe to go to school?" Tur pressured Paxton.

“I don't think there's any way to say that we're ever 100 percent safe," the attorney general responded.

What solutions did the AG offer?

“We've got a long way to go," Paxton said. He listed potential solutions to improve school safety, including installing security officers and training administrators and teachers to carry a gun.

Pat's take:

“Unbelievable," Pat said on today's show. “Nobody can promise [100 percent safety]."

Every president from George Washington to Donald Trump has issued at least one executive order (with the exception of William Harrison who died just 31 days into his presidency) and yet the U.S. Constitution doesn't even mention executive orders. So how did the use of this legislative loophole become such an accepted part of the job? Well, we can thank Franklin Roosevelt for that.

Back at the chalkboard, Glenn Beck broke down the progression of the executive order over the years and discussed which US Presidents have been the “worst offenders."

RELATED: POWER GRAB: Here's how US presidents use 'moments of crisis' to override Constitutional law

“It's hard to judge our worst presidential overreachers on sheer numbers alone," said Glenn. “However, it's not a shock that FDR issued by far the most of any president."

Our first 15 presidents issued a combined total of 143. By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3721, more than twice the next runner up, Woodrow Wilson, at 1803.

“Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by decree, until we get to this guy: President Obama," Glenn explained. “He didn't issue 3000, or even 1800; he did 276 executive orders, but it was the power of those orders. He instituted 560 major regulations classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having 'significant economic or social impacts.' That's 50 percent more regulations than George W. Bush's presidency — and remember, everybody thought he was a fascist."

President Obama blamed an obstructionist Congress for forcing him to bypass the legislative process. By executive order, President Obama decreed the U.S. join the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan and transgender restrooms. He also authorized spying in US citizens through section 702 of FISA, used the IRS to target political opponents and ordered military action in Libya without Congressional permission.

All of these changes were accepted by the very people who now condemn President Trump for his use of executive orders — many of which were issued to annul President Obama's executive orders, just as President Obama annulled President Bush's executive orders when he took office … and therein lies the rub with executive orders.

“That's not the way it's supposed to work, nor would we ever want it to be," said Glenn. “We have to have the Constitution and laws need to originate in Congress."

Watch the video above to find out more.

Six months ago, I alerted readers to the very attractive benefits that the TreasuryDirect program offers to investors who are defensively sitting on cash right now.

Since then, those benefits have continued to improve. Substantially.

Back in November, by holding extremely conservative short-term (i.e., 6-months or less) Treasury bills, TreasuryDirect participants were receiving over 16x more in interest payments vs keeping their cash in a standard bank savings account.

Today, they're now receiving over 30 times more. Without having to worry about the risk of a bank "bail-in" or failure.

So if you're holding cash right now and NOT participating in the TreasuryDirect program, do yourself a favor and read on. If you're going to pass on this opportunity, at least make it an 'eyes-wide-open' decision.

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

There are many prudent reasons to hold cash in today's dangerously overvalued financial markets, as we've frequently touted here at PeakProsperity.com.

Well, there's now one more good reason to add to the list: holding cash in short-term Treasurys is now meeting/beating the dividend returns offered by the stock market:

"Cash Is King" Again - 3-Month Bills Yield More Than Stocks (Zero Hedge)
'Reaching for yield' just got a lot easier...
For the first time since February 2008, three-month Treasury bills now have a yield advantage over the S&P; 500 dividend yield (and dramatically lower risk).
Investors can earn a guaranteed 1.90% by holding the 3-month bills or a risky 1.89% holding the S&P; 500...

The longest period of financial repression in history is coming to an end...

And it would appear TINA is dead as there is now an alternative.

And when you look at the total return (dividends + appreciation) of the market since the start of 2018, stocks have returned only marginally better than 3-month Treasurys. Plus, those scant few extra S&P; points have come with a LOT more risk.

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

In my June report Less Than Zero: How The Fed Killed Saving, I explained how the Federal Reserve's policy of holding interest rates at record lows has decimated savers. Those who simply want to park money somewhere "safe" can't do so without losing money in real terms.

To drive this point home: back in November, the average interest rate being offered in a US bank savings account was an insutling 0.06%. Six months later, nothing has changed:

(Source

That's virtually the same as getting paid 0%. But it's actually worse than that, because once you take inflation into account, the real return on your savings is markedly negative.

And to really get your blood boiling, note that the Federal Reserve has rasied the federal funds rate it pays banks from 1.16% in November to 1.69% in April. Banks are now making nearly 50% more money on the excess reserves they park at the Fed -- but are they passing any of that free profit along to their depositors? No....

This is why knowing about the TreasuryDirect program is so important. It's a way for individual investors savvy enough to understand the game being played to bend some of its rules to their favor and limit the damage they suffer.

Below is an updated version (using today's rates) of my recap of TreasuryDirect, which enables you to get over 30x more interest on your cash savings than your bank will pay you, with lower risk.

TreasuryDirect

For those not already familiar with it, TreasuryDirect is a service offered by the United States Department of the Treasury that allows individual investors to purchase Treasury securities such as T-Bills, notes and bonds directly from the U.S. government.

You purchase these Treasury securities by linking a TreasuryDirect account to your personal bank account. Once linked, you use your cash savings to purchase T-bills, etc from the US Treasury. When the Treasury securities you've purchased mature or are sold, the proceeds are deposited back into your bank account.

So why buy Treasuries rather than keep your cash savings in a bank? Two main reasons:

  • Much higher return: T-Bills are currently offering an annualized return rate between 1.66-2.04%. Notes and bonds, depending on their duration, are currently offering between 2.6% - 3.1%
  • Extremely low risk: Your bank can change the interest rate on your savings account at any time -- with Treasury bills, your rate of return is locked in at purchase. Funds in a bank are subject to risks such as a bank bail-in or the insolvency of the FDIC depositor protection program -- while at TreasuryDirect, your funds are being held with the US Treasury, the institution with the lowest default risk in the country for reasons I'll explain more in a moment.

Let's look at a quick example. If you parked $100,000 in the average bank savings account for a full year, you would earn $60 in interest. Let's compare this to the current lowest-yielding TreasuryDirect option: continuously rolling that same $100,000 into 4-week T-Bills for a year:

  1. Day 1: Funds are transferred from your bank account to TreasuryDirect to purchase $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at auction yielding 1.68%
  2. Day 28: the T-Bills mature and the Treasury holds the full $100,000 proceeds in your TreasuryDirect account. Since you've set up the auto-reinvestment option, TreasuryDirect then purchases another $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at the next auction.
  3. Days 29-364: the process repeats every 4 weeks
  4. Day 365: assuming the average yield for T-Bills remained at 1.68%, you will have received $1,680 in interest in total throughout the year from the US Treasury.

$1,680 vs $60. That's a 27x difference in return.

And the comparison only improves if you decide to purchase longer duration (13-week or 26-week) bills instead of the 4-week ones:

Repeating the above example for a year using 13-week bills would yield $1,925. Using 26-week bills would yield $2,085. A lot better (34x better!) than $60.

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

So what are the downsides to using TreasuryDirect? There aren't many.

The biggest one is opportunity cost. While your money is being held in a T-Bill, it's tied up at the US Treasury. If you suddenly need access to those funds, you have to wait until the bill matures.

But T-Bill durations are short. 4 weeks is not a lot of time to have to wait. (If you think the probability is high you may to need to pull money out of savings sooner than that, you shouldn't be considering the TreasuryDirect program.)

Other than that, TreasuryDirect offers an appealing reduction in risk.

If your bank suddenly closes due to a failure, any funds invested in TreasuryDirect are not in your bank account, so are not subject to being confiscated in a bail-in.

Instead, your money is held as a T-Bill, note or bond, which is essentially an obligation of the US Treasury to pay you in full for the face amount. The US Treasury is the single last entity in the country (and quite possibly, the world) that will ever default on its obligations. Why? Because Treasurys are the mechanism by which money is created in the US. Chapter 8 from The Crash Course explains:

As a result, to preserve its ability to print the money it needs to function, the US government will bring its full force and backing to bear in order to ensure confidence in the market for Treasurys.

Meaning: the US government won't squelch on paying you back the money you lent it. If required, it will just print the money it needs to repay you.

So, How To Get Started?

Usage of TreasuryDirect is quite low among investors today. Many are unaware of the program. Others simply haven't tried it out.

And let's be real: it's crazy that we live in a world where a 1.68-2.09% return now qualifies as an exceptionally high yield on savings. A lot of folks just can't get motivated to take action by rates that low. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't -- money left on the table is money forfeited.

So, if you're interested in learning more about the TreasuryDirect program, start by visiting their website. Like everything operated by the government, it's pretty 'no frills'; but their FAQ page addresses investors' most common questions.

Before you decide whether or not to fund an account there, be sure to discuss the decision with your professional financial advisor to make sure it fits well with your personal financial situation and goals. (If you're having difficulty finding a good one, consider scheduling a free discussion with PeakProsperity.com's endorsed financial advisor -- who has considerable experience managing TreasuryDirect purchases for many of its clients).

In Part 2: A Primer On How To Use TreasuryDirect, we lay out the step-by-step process for opening, funding and transacting within a TreasuryDirect account. We've created it to be a helpful resource for those self-directed individuals potentially interested in increasing their return on their cash savings in this manner.

Yes, we savers are getting completely abused by our government's policies. So there's some poetic justice in using the government's own financing instruments to slightly lessen the sting of the whip.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

NOTE: PeakProsperity.com does not have any business relationship with the TreasuryDirect program. Nor is anything in the article above to be taken as an offer of personal financial advice. As mentioned, discuss any decision to participate in TreasuryDirect with your professional financial advisor before taking action.