Which Alternate Universe Does Newt Gingrich Live In?

October 26, 2016

Writer

If Newt Gingrich's alternate universe includes a pipe dream in which he outmaneuvers Fox News star Megyn Kelly, he might want to consider changing realities.

In a bizarre encounter with the host of The Kelly File, the former Speaker of the House and Trump devotee got into a sparring match that left him looking petty, angry and unhinged. Kelly, on the other hand, came off as calm, cool and collected.

"I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife? You're dead. You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless," Glenn said on radio Wednesday.

Co-host Pat Gray agreed.

"She's completely under control, and he's out of control," he said.

Gingrich's universe also includes the state of Pennsylvania magically allowing early voting.

"They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. ...All I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida," Gingrich claimed.

However, co-host Stu Burguiere made a very salient point.

"We're talking about two alternative universes, and we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania. The other universe is the one we live in, in which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe," he said.

"Holy cow," Glenn replied.

Alternate universe, indeed.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these controlled questions:

• Which candidate is consistently polling ahead in Pennsylvania?

• Do facts matter if you're a Trump supporter?

• Does Gingrich consider Fox News part of the MSM?

• Which three states has Fox News moved to the left as a likely win for Hillary?

• Is it acceptable for a gentleman to publicly accuse a woman of being obsessed with sex?

• Has Trump's crassness rubbed off on Gingrich?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Last night, it was Megyn Kelly versus Newt Gingrich on the facts. It was -- it was quite an amazing thing. And I think Newt Gingrich said everything right towards the beginning when he said, "We are dealing with two alternative universes." And he's right. I think there is the universe that Newt Gingrich is living in and the universe that everyone else is living in. But maybe it's just me.

I want you to listen to this. And we could take clips, but as I was watching it this morning, I thought to myself, "Man, I could stop it at three different points and say, that was incredible. That was incredible to watch."

But wait, there's more. I think you need to hear the whole thing in context. Listen to this.

NEWT: Good to be back.

MEGYN: I mean, with Cook and many other non-partisan, independent pollsters now saying that the Senate is likely lost to the Republicans, what does that say? I mean, if Donald Trump loses this White House race and the Republicans lose the Senate, does that suggest that the Republicans nominated the wrong candidate at the top of their ticket?

NEWT: Well, the next two weeks are a contest of two parallel universes. I just listened to that report.

First of all, I used to hang with Charlie Cook when he would explain that Donald Trump was hopeless and would not get the nomination. I like Charlie. That doesn't mean he's infallible.

GLENN: Okay. Stop for a second.

I want to just say something here. There's something that I want to get to later. Michael Moore says Donald Trump is going to win. And when you hear his explanation of why he believes he's going to win, I think he has a good point. I think he may be right. And it was what I was talking about yesterday and what I was saying to the people up in New York, who are in the mainstream media. Who say, Donald -- Hillary Clinton is going to win. I'm not so sure of it.

STU: Typical Glenn. Glenn Beck is dumb!

GLENN: You should turn your mic on.

STU: It is on.

GLENN: Oh, it's just not working today? Good. Thank you, guys. Thank you for finally getting it done. Stu's mic is not working.

GLENN: But you need to listen to that. We'll get to that in a second. But I want to point out here that when you're watching this -- Newt Gingrich throws up his hands and shrugs his shoulders when he says -- when Megyn says, "If they lose the Senate, does that mean they nominated the wrong person?" He just shrugs it off as, "Eh, I don't know. We're in two parallel universes." If we lose the Senate or the House, that's a really bad thing. Can we all agree that we're in that universe, that that's a bad thing? Now.

NEWT: Report we just got. Republicans are actually outvoting Democrats in Florida. They're outvoting Democrats in Pennsylvania. That's unprecedented. They've cut the Democratic lead --

MEGYN: You predict a win in Pennsylvania?

NEWT: I think they might.

MEGYN: Really? You think Trump's going to win Pennsylvania.

NEWT: Look, all I can report to you right now is they're outvoting the Democrats in early voting, which is also true in Florida, which is unprecedented.

MEGYN: But all the polls in Pennsylvania had her winning.

NEWT: What?

MEGYN: All of the polls in Pennsylvania have her head.

NEWT: I know. I just told you, we have two alternative universes right now.

GLENN: Okay. Stop. So there's one universe where the facts say one thing and another universe where the facts say something else. Stu, can you help me out with the early voting that Democrats are behind and that Republicans are outvoting them?

STU: You know, it's a -- it's an interesting point he's making there. There has been some -- I think Donald Trump's early voting looks pretty good in Iowa, I would say. I would say --

GLENN: In Florida? He's saying that they're --

PAT: Florida and Pennsylvania.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Because he said, again, we're talking about two alternative universes.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And we need to find those universes. One is the universe where Donald Trump is winning in an unprecedented way: The early vote in Pennsylvania.

The other universe is the one we live in, which Pennsylvania does not allow early voting. That's the other universe. So --

GLENN: Holy cow.

STU: It's going to be -- it would be unprecedented if he was winning the early vote in Pennsylvania.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: Are you kidding?

STU: They don't do it there.

JEFFY: What?

PAT: They don't have early voting in Pennsylvania?

STU: No, that's not a thing.

PAT: What the hell is he talking about?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: I mean, he's just --

PAT: You don't need a single fact if you're a Trump supporter. You don't need fact one.

GLENN: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's amazing.

STU: That is amazing.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead. So go ahead.

NEWT: I will -- for example, the Democrats are 50,000 votes behind, where they were with Barack Obama in turnout. The governor is very confident we're going to carry Iowa, which Obama carried last time.

GLENN: Do you agree with that?

STU: I actually --

PAT: Wait. 50,000 behind where they were with Obama doesn't mean they're losing to Trump.

GLENN: I know. And it depends also on '12 or on '08. '08 was unprecedented. So being behind in '08 is not necessarily saying --

STU: And those are good things to consider. I actually do think he's going to win Iowa. I could be wrong on it, and it could change. But his numbers are good in Iowa in the early voting. And his polling has been strong in Iowa throughout, as opposed to other states -- comparing it to other states that are similar or ones --

PAT: Isn't that interesting since Ted Cruz won Iowa in the primary? That's interesting.

STU: Yeah. Iowa has been a strong state for Trump polling against --

PAT: Because they haven't been that strong for Republicans lately.

STU: Right.

PAT: And now --

GLENN: They're still not.

PAT: And they're still not.

GLENN: They're still not. They're still not.

NEWT: -- case like this. In Minnesota, we're almost certainly going to win the congressional seat up around Duluth, which is a very Democratic area. But it deeply dislikes Hillary Clinton. And represent --

MEGYN: But let me just ask you -- let me just ask you, because you say it's two alternative universes. I mean --

NEWT: Yeah.

PAT: Why not North Dakota too? There's a guy running for alderman, who may win, and he doesn't like Hillary either.

GLENN: All right. All right.

PAT: Stupid.

MEGYN: These are sort of small examples of how he might be ahead in early voting and so on. But I'm telling you that the Fox News decision desk just moved Iowa that you just mentioned, Indiana, second congressional district in Maine -- all of them moved left, moved more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton. And, in fact, all of the moves that have been on this map over the past three weeks, by Larry Sabato, by Cook, by the Fox News decision desks -- these are nonpartisan outlets that are just trying to call the electoral --

NEWT: What? They're not nonpartisan outlets. Every outlet you describe is part of the establishment.

MEGYN: Fox News. Really? Are we? I don't think so.

NEWT: Oh, come on.

MEGYN: Every state they've moved, they've moved it to the left, towards the left, towards Hillary. And you tell me whether that's all made up.

PAT: So he's attacking Fox News who has been in the bag for Trump the entire election.

GLENN: I think he's only attacking --

PAT: He may be only attacking Megyn Kelly.

STU: And the Fox News polls.

PAT: Yeah, and the polls.

STU: He's trying is what he's doing. He's doing his best.

GLENN: He's muddying the waters.

PAT: He's grasping at straws.

NEWT: No, I think they're two alternative universes. You have a poll which suggests that she's going to get a Barack Obama turnout among African-Americans. I don't think that's going to happen. You have a Washington Post/ABC News poll when where they took out eight percent of the vote because they didn't like the way it voted.

Look, I've been around long enough. I remember when the Detroit liberal newspaper, on the Sunday before the election, said John (inaudible) would lose by 14 points. He won the governorship that year. I don't take polls as seriously as people who have never run for office.

MEGYN: But your candidate -- your candidate loves them and has touted them from the beginning. And he's been behind in virtually every one of them, out of the last 40 polls that we've seen over the past month. That's the reality.

STU: The important point to remember here -- because I think a lot of Trump people realize this, but in case you're on the Newt Gingrich bandwagon, the issue with the problem with the primary was not saying the polls were wrong and Donald Trump was losing and then he wound up winning. It was that he was winning the whole time. And people, like myself, for example, gave you reasons why the polls probably were not going to work out in Donald Trump's favor. And they did. He wound up winning. But he was winning the whole time. So now the same people that were questioning the polls and saying -- or, questioning the polls now that they were saying they were right then. The point here seems to be that the polls are right. The polls have done a pretty good job in predicting these things.

GLENN: Well, the polls showed him winning at the time against his candidates. But they showed him losing against Hillary.

STU: The same polls.

GLENN: The same polls.

STU: The same methodology. The same organizations.

GLENN: Right. It's why we were saying during the primary, stop looking at those polls. He's telling you he's winning in everything. He's losing in all of the critical polls which show the head-to-head against Hillary. He was the only one that was losing every single time to Hillary Clinton.

Now, those were the same polls that showed him winning against Marco Rubio, against Ted Cruz. But losing at the same time to Hillary Clinton.

STU: The margin increased, not decreased, but increased as Trump won the primary.

GLENN: Yes. Increased. Yes. Yes.

PAT: Which is a point we tried to make a million times here.

GLENN: Yes. It was going the wrong direction.

STU: The wrong direction. And it's like, to believe that, you have to believe that part of the poll done by the same organization was biased. But the other part of the same poll done by the same organization is not biased. These are not -- these are not, you know, intellectually consistent arguments.

GLENN: No. Because they were done at the same time. It's not like these polls -- it's not like the polls showed him winning against Clinton during the primary. Those same polls showed him losing against --

PAT: I don't think he won a single one during the primary.

GLENN: I don't -- not that I remember. Stu, you'd be better at that.

PAT: Did he win a single poll, head-to-head, during the primary, against Hillary?

STU: I can get you the numbers on that, but I think he did win a couple. All of those that he -- I think he won a couple by one or two points.

GLENN: It was like 51 polls or something --

STU: I think it was over 100.

PAT: It was more than that. Yeah, he had lost 118 out of 120, or something like that.

STU: I can find it.

NEWT: Do you want to assume the election is over? Skip the next two weeks and we can talk about the future.

GLENN: Now, listen to this.

MEGYN: I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you whether you believe your candidate is behind based on these numbers and what it says about the down-ballot races.

NEWT: I believe the odds are at least one in three and maybe better than that. But the difference in intensity and the difference in determination and the degree to which Hillary Clinton is clearly the most corrupt, dishonest person ever nominated by a party, all mean that the odds are pretty good she's not going to win.

Now, I actually believe that. This is not just because I'm for Donald Trump. I actually believe the American people are sickened by this.

MEGYN: So let me ask you --

NEWT: Sure.

MEGYN: Let's assume she is corrupt. Right? She was just as corrupt three weeks ago and three months ago. And she would have been corrupt and collapsing physically on September 11th of this year and her poll numbers tanked. But then you know what happened: He had a rough first debate. He took the bait on Alicia Machado. He stayed in that trap for a week. The Access Hollywood tape came out, which was not produced by Hillary Clinton. That was Trump, on camera talking about grabbing women --

NEWT: That was -- Megyn, I just heard -- look, I just heard you go through this with Governor Pence. I get it. I know where you're coming from. Let me point out something to you.

MEGYN: Sure.

NEWT: The three major networks spent 23 minutes --

GLENN: That no one watches.

NEWT: Attacking Donald Trump that night and 57 seconds on Hillary Clinton's secret speeches. You don't think this is a scale of bias worth of Pravda and Izvestia. I mean, you want to know why Donald Trump has had a rough time --

MEGYN: If Trump is a sexual predator, that is --

NEWT: He's not a sexual predator. You can't say that. You could not defend that statement.

MEGYN: Okay. That's your opinion. I'm not taking a position on it. I am not taking a position on it.

NEWT: I am sick and tired of people like you, using language --

GLENN: Like you.

NEWT: -- that's inflammatory that's not true.

MEGYN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. You have no idea whether it's true or not. What we know is that there are at least --

NEWT: Neither do you.

MEGYN: That's right. And I'm not taking a position on it, unlike you.

NEWT: Oh, yes, you are. When you use the words, you took a position. And I think it's very unfair of you to do that, Megyn. I think that is exactly the bias people are upset by.

MEGYN: So what I said -- incorrect.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: I think that your defensiveness on this may speak volumes, sir.

What I said -- no, no, let me make my point, and then I'll give you the floor.

What I said is, "If Trump is a sexual predator, then it's a big story." And what we saw on that tape was Trump himself saying that he likes to grab women by the genitals and kiss them against their will. That's what we saw. Then we saw 10 women come forward after he denied actually doing it at a debate to say, "That was untrue. He did it to me. He did it to me." We saw reporters. We saw people who had worked with him. People from Apprentice and so on and so forth. He denies it all, which is his right. We don't know what the truth is.

PAT: Newt knows -- Newt knows her. He should know better than this. You don't take Megyn Kelly head-to-head like this.

GLENN: All I can think of this whole time --

PAT: What are you doing?

GLENN: All I can think of -- I'm listening to this, and I'm thinking, "Her poor husband and children ever trying to pick a fight with mom or the wife. You're dead."

PAT: Bad idea. Bad idea.

GLENN: You're dead. Listen, you know she's angry, yet she is completely emotionless.

PAT: She's completely under control, and he's out of control.

GLENN: And he's out of control, and he's about to really lose control.

MEGYN: To you, as a media story, we don't get to say the ten women are lying. We have to cover that story, sir.

NEWT: Well, sure. Okay. So it's worth 23 minutes of the three networks to cover that story, and Hillary Clinton in a secret speech in Brazil to a bank that pays her 225,000 saying her dream is an open border where 600 million could come to America, that's not worth covering?

MEGYN: That is worth covering. And we did.

NEWT: You want to go back to the tapes of your show recently? You are fascinated about sex, and you don't care about public policy.

MEGYN: Me? Really?

NEWT: That's what I get out of watching you tonight.

PAT: Wow.

MEGYN: You know what, Mr. Speaker, I'm not fascinated by sex. But I am fascinated by the protection of women and understanding what we're getting in the Oval Office. And I think the American voters would like --

NEWT: Okay. So we're going to send Bill Clinton back to the East Wing because, after all, you are worried about sexual predators.

MEGYN: Yeah. Listen, it's not about me. It's about the women and men in America. And the poll numbers show us that the women in America, in particular, are very concerned about these allegations. And in large part believe that they are a real issue. And don't dismiss the --

NEWT: You want to comment -- do you want to comment on whether the Clinton ticket has a relationship to a sexual predator?

MEGYN: We, on the Kelly File, have covered that story as well, sir. I will tell you the polls --

NEWT: No, I just want to hear you use the words. I want to hear the words "Bill Clinton, sexual predator." I dare you. Say "Bill Clinton, sexual predator."

GLENN: Out of control.

MEGYN: Mr. Speaker, we've covered -- excuse me, sir.

NEWT: Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. Disbarred by the Arkansas bar. $850,000 penalty.

MEGYN: Excuse me, sir. We, on the Kelly File, have covered the Clinton matter as well. We have hosted Kathleen Willey.

NEWT: Try saying it.

MEGYN: We've covered the examples of him being accused as well, but he's not on the ticket. And the polls also show that the American people is less interested in the deeds of Hillary Clinton's husband than they are in the deeds of the man who asks us to make him president, Donald Trump.

We're going to have to leave it at that, and you can take your anger issues and spend time working on them, Mr. Speaker.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Kelly File

THESE 19 states joined Desantis' alliance against ESG. Here are their 2 main goals.

On Monday, Biden exercised his veto powers for the first time to strike down a bill that would ban states from taking ESG into consideration when investing state pension funds. In his veto message, Biden said:

Retirement plan fiduciaries should be able to consider any factor that maximizes financial returns for retirees across the country. That's not controversial — that's common sense.

At the risk of using the loaded word "gaslit," it continues to be the operative word in describing the policies coming out of the Biden White House. It is painfully obvious that ESG itself inhibits investors from "maximizing financial returns." That was never ESG's goal in the first place. Yet Biden said the opposite.

ESG aims to incentivize investors to make "socially conscious" (a.k.a woke) investments, even if they are at odds with the greatest return on investment. It has enabled state governments and investment firms to use their monopoly over the investment space to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment. Isn't there a word for that? Extortion? Or modern-day politics?

ESG enables state governments to force companies to choose between adopting their woke ESG standards and losing critical investment.

That is the sole reason why Republicans brought the bill to his desk in the first place: As Glenn said, "ESG poses a clear and present danger to the American way of life, the soul of our nation and every sector of our economy. ESG was never about ROI. It was always about pushing a leftist agenda.

And Biden knows this.

Why would he want to give up something that enables his political party and corporate elites to control and manipulate the political affiliations of their people? Who would want to give up that power? Biden certainly doesn't.

And he didn't.

Instead, he boldly asserts the exact opposite: that ESG itself "maximizes financial returns," relying on the divided American people to debate the policy into oblivion, while he gets exactly what he wants: the retention of power over the American consumer. Dare I say again that "gaslit" is the operative word here?

If one thing is clear, it is that we cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people. However, in this critical moment, the state governments are stepping up to do what the federal government refuses to: protecting the rights of the American consumer.

In a joint resolution led by Florida Governor Ron Desantis, 19 states have pledged “to protect individuals from the ESG movement" at the state level. This is critical.

We cannot rely on the federal government to act in the best interests of the American people.

Florida leads Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming in signing the historic policy agreement among all 19 states, pledging to ban ESG practices within their jurisdictions.

The anti-ESG alliance calls ESG what it is:

A direct threat to the American economy, individual economic freedom, and our way of life, putting investment decisions in the hands of the woke mob to bypass the ballot box and inject political ideology into investment decisions, corporate governance, and the everyday economy.

This alliance takes aim at two specific practices used by left-leaning states to force companies to adopt ESG-approved practices.

First, the alliance promises to protect "taxpayers from ESG influences across state systems."

While other states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund pro-ESG corporations, these states pledge to BAN this practice to ensure "that only financial factors are considered to maximize the return on investment."

The chief factor behind any investment should be determining whether that investment yields the maximum return on their investment. However, many states are using YOUR taxpayer-funded pension and retirement funds to invest in ESG-approved businesses. This not only forces businesses to consider adopting ESG standards in hopes of obtaining investment. Moreover, states are using YOUR taxpayer dollars to fund them! Would you want your government to invest your hard-earned money for partisan purposes?

The anti-ESG alliance is taking the politics out of investment and putting consumer power back in the hands of the American people. These state governments pledged to make investment decisions based solely on maximizing the return on investment, not in using your taxpayer dollars to fund their political agendas.

Second, the alliance promises to protect "citizens from ESG influences in the financial sector."

ESG standards force businesses to consider the political leanings of their customer base. For example, Discover announced they will begin tracking its customers' gun-related purchases. One of the leaders behind this push is Amalgamated Bank, which boasts on their website that their institution "supports sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice." Amalgamated Bank CEO Priscilla Sims Brown said:

We all have to do our part to stop gun violence and it sometimes starts with illegal purchases of guns and ammunition The new code will allow us to fully comply with our duty to report suspicious activity and illegal gun sales to authorities without blocking or impeding legal gun sales.

This virtue signaling at the cost of your privacy is earning both Discover and Amalgamated ESG brownie points.

There are countless stories of Americans, like YOU, getting locked out of their bank accounts, dropped as clients, tracked and targeted, all because their personal political beliefs don't align with big corporations' ESG goals. Their individual privacy and dignity as a consumer aren't worth the risk of lowering the company's ESG score.

That's why the anti-ESG alliance is pledging to protect the residents in their states from this corrupt ESG exploitation. The alliance promised to ban "so-called social Credit Scores' in banking and lending practices aimed to prevent citizens from obtaining financial services like loans, lines of credit, and bank accounts."

They also promised to stop "financial institutions from discriminating against customers for their religious, political, or social beliefs, such as owning a firearm, securing the border, or increasing our energy independence."

In short, they have targeted the political extortion hidden behind the virtuous ESG veil to protect citizens from being discriminated against based on political affiliation.

It's time to step up.

Biden may have struck down the effort to restore the freedom of the American consumer at the federal level. However, these states are taking it upon themselves to do what they ought: to ban practices that threaten the freedoms and privacy of their citizens.

If your state did not joining the anti-ESG alliance, it's time to demand that they step up and do their job to protect you and the rest of your fellow citizens from corrupt ESG practices. As Glenn said, "The conservative movement is best when it moves in unison." We must act and unison and push our states to protect our economic freedom and our way of life.

Are YOU prepared? Download Glenn's ULTIMATE preparation guide!

How prepared are YOU to weather a future crisis? We recently published a brand new quiz so you can find out exactly how prepared you are. Whether you're a "prepper" with a bunker fit for the apocolypse or just want to feel more secure for the future, there is always something more to learn. That's why Glenn wants to give his newsletter subscribers his "Ultimate Preparation Guide," filled with practical tips for building a solid foundation to weather future crises. And let's face it—in our crazy world right now, who couldn't use a bit more peace of mind?

Enter your email below to get "Glenn's Ultimate Preparation Guide" sent straight to your inbox!

THESE 12 Republican states are smuggling digital currency through THIS sneaky bill

Dem10 | Getty Images

Editor's Note: Arizona House Bill HB2770 has since been shut down! AZ Rep. Rachel Jones tweeted that the AZ Freedom Caucus shut down the bill before it could reach the board. It is encouraging to see states stepping to protect the American people from getting one step closer to a Central Bank Digital Currency. Hopefully, Arizona will be a precedent for the other states!

This gem was buried in a 113 page bill pushed by a lobbyist through one of my clueless colleagues. It passed out of the Commerce Committee, but then @AZFreedomCaucus blocked it from even going on the board. @glennbeck you'll be happy to know we killed it.
— AZ Representative Rachel Jones (@RJ4arizona) March 17, 2023

On today's radio broadcast, Glenn warned about dangerous Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) language being smuggled into routine legislation in REPUBLICAN-led states. This is unacceptable, and as Glenn said, we can't let this legislation pass as it now stands.

The legislation being used to smuggle in this CBDC language is the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a routine piece of legislation passed on the state level that helps standardize commercial and business transactions. However, a new round of UCCs being deliberated RIGHT NOW amongst a swath of Republican-led states anticipate the use of "electronic money." In a public letter sent to the Republican states currently deliberating this legislation, the Pro-Family Legislative Network said this can only refer to the Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) under consideration and testing by the Federal Reserve. Biden's Executive Order 14067 issued in March of 2022 started the push for CBDC, and now these states, knowingly or unknowingly, are laying the legislative groundwork for making CBDC a reality.

There is absolutely no reason why Republican-led states should aid in laying the foundation for CBDC, yet 12 of them are deliberating it RIGHT NOW, with one UCC bill already on one GOP governor's desk! We have to act NOW to stop these UCCs in their tracks and demand our lawmakers amend the bills without the "electronic money" language.

If your state is listed below, contact your representative NOW to put an end to CBDC language.

1. North Dakota

North Dakota House Bill HB1082 passed BOTH chambers and is now sitting on Governor Burgum's desk. Burgun has 3 DAYS to veto this bill once it's placed on his desk—if not, it will pass automatically. If you are a North Dakota resident, it is absolutely CRUCIAL that you contact Governor Burgum's office NOW and demand that he veto this bill and re-introduce it without the "electronic money" language.

2. Arizona

Arizona House Bill HB2770 has been SHUT DOWN! See the above editor's note for more details.

Arizona House Bill HB2770 passed the House majority and minority caucuses. Arizona residents, contact your representative's office NOW so that they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

3. Arkansas

Arkansas House Bill HB1588 is in committee, and if passed, will head to the House floor. Though the bill is only in its beginning stages, it's important for Arkansas residents to stop this bill in its tracks and amend it without the "electronic money" language.

4. Missouri

Missouri House Bill HB1165 is also in its beginning stages in committee. That means it's important to contact your representative as soon as possible to amend it without the "electronic money" language.

5. Oklahoma

Oklahoma House Bill HB 2776 passed the House Committee and will go to a chamber vote soon. If passed, it will go to the Senate, then the governor's desk. If you are an Indiana resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6. Indiana

Indiana Senate Bill SB0486 passed the Senate and is headed to the House. Republicans control Indiana's executive office and BOTH chambers of the legislature. There is no excuse for this bill to pass. If you are an Indiana resident, it's vital you contact your representative NOW and demand they amend this bill without the "electronic money" language.

7. Kentucky

Kentucky Senate Bill SB64 passed the Senate and is now being deliberated in the House. If you live in Kentucky, contact your representative's office to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

8. Montana

Montana Senate Bill SB370 passed the Senate and was sent to the House on March 3rd. If you are a Montana resident, contact your representative's office NOW so that the bill doesn't without changing the "electronic money" language.

9. Nebraska

Nebraska's Legislative Bill LB94 passed committee and the first floor vote. As Nebraska only has one legislative chamber, this bill is dangerously close to passing the legislature and being sent to the governor's desk. If you are a Nebraska resident, contact your representative's office NOW and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

10. New Hampshire

New Hampshire House Bill HB584 is currently in House committee deliberations and has not yet reached the House floor. If you are a New Hampshire resident, contact your representative's office NOW to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

11. Tennessee

Tennessee House Bill HB0640 didn't successfully pass the House. However, it was deferred to a Senate committee and has now taken the form of Senate Bill SB0479, which is now in committee. This bill is still alive, and it's important for you, Tennessee residents, to stop it before it reaches the floor! Contact your representative to amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

12. Texas

Texas House Bill HB5011 was filed and is ready to be taken up by committee. Fellow Texans, let's not let this bill progress any further! Contact your representative and demand they amend the bill without the "electronic money" language.

6 things you NEED to know about the Silicon Valley Bank collapse

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Silicon Valley Bank's collapse is sparking traumatic memories of the 2008 financial crash. Should we be worried SVB is signaling a similar economic catastrophe, or is everyone overreacting to the media's hype? Glenn told his listeners to be "healthily terrified." This event is sure to have ripple effects throughout the economy, but the more you are informed about it, the more you can prepare. Here are 6 things you need to know about Silicon Valley Bank's crash—explained in simple words.

1. The short answer to what happened: SVB didn't have enough money to pay its depositors.

Remember the scene from It's a Wonderful Life when all of the residents make a run on George Bailey's bank demanding their money? Fortunately for them, their money was in the altruistic hands of George Bailey, who used his honeymoon savings to give the depositors the money they demanded.

Silicon Valley Bank's depositors weren't so lucky.

In short, the depositors made a run on Silicon Valley Bank, demanding the withdrawal of their money. But SVB simply didn't have the liquid money available to give their depositors, causing regulators to shut down the bank shortly afterward.

2. It all started with COVID...

Why didn't SVB have enough money for its depositors? To explain this, we have to go back to the pandemic era.

The pandemic saw a rapid decrease in spending and a massive increase in bank deposits. Due to the uncertainty of the future and lockdowns limiting ways to spend money on recreational activities, like restaurants, bars, and other outlets, many Americans stocked up money in their accounts. In fact, SVB's deposits doubled in 2021 alone, bringing in more money than they could lend out to their clients.

To make a return on their available cash, SVB wanted to invest it, as many banks do. Since they had reached their lending limit, they decided to invest it in U.S. Treasury Securities, which are the government's means of funding itself without using taxation (in a nutshell). These are considered "ultra-safe" investments because they are backed by the "full faith and credit of the federal government."

Unlike other forms of investments, investing in Treasuries means the government will do everything within its legal power to pay back the money used to fund itself. In other words, it is typically very safe... so what happened?

3. Then came the magic cocktail—record-high inflation and rising interest rates...

Interest rates ruined the typically "ultra-safe" investment. Due to 40-year record-high inflation, the Fed lifted rates eight times by a total of 4.25 percentage points in 2022, raising interest rates from 0.25 percent to 4.375 percent. This means the value of U.S. Treasuries investments plummeted rapidly. SVB reported that it lost $1.8 billion due to the decreased value of its Treasuries investments after a year of rising interest rates.

This raises the following question: why didn't SVB just weather the storm and wait for interest rates to decrease? There are two issues with this. The first is that, with so many of their assets held up in Treasuries investments, SVB still wouldn't have enough liquid assets to give their depositors during the bank run.

The second issue is that Treasuries investments have a ten-year limit. In 2021 during the Trump administration, interest rates were at an all-time low of 0.125 percent.

The record-fast increase of interest rates in 2022 caused very little chance for rates to go back down to their historic 2021 lows within ten years for banks to make their money back on their investments.

To avoid this, SVB planned to sell their investments at a loss and re-purchase Treasuries investments at the decreased value, giving them an extra ten years to bet on decreased interest rates in the future.

But people caught on to SVB's plan and didn't want to ride with the risk.

4. Account holders withdrew their money... FAST.

As aforementioned, SVP lost $1.8 billion when it sold its depleted Treasuries investments. While they were betting on being able to re-purchase the devalued securities, hoping that they would go up in value in the future with lowered interest rates, investors were worried about the risk.

Once they made the announcement of their $1.8 billion loss, their stocks began to drop, and venture capitalists warned the companies they invest in to pull out of SVB. This had a snowball effect, leading to a "bank run" of depositors demanding to withdraw their money from their SVB accounts.

This led to the perfect storm: SVB's investment losses coupled with the influx of withdrawals were so immense that regulators had to step in and shut the bank down to protect depositors. The government currently "running" SVB, for all practical purposes, is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC closed SVB on Friday and reopened the bank on Monday, March 13th as the Deposit Insurance Bank of Santa Clara.

5. Some people may lose their money.

Banks insure accounts with $250,000 or less with FDIC insurance. That means, in cases of bank failure, exactly like this one, the FDIC covers all accounts less than $250,000. The FDIC said SVB customers who had less than $250,000 in their accounts will have access to all of their money when the bank reopens. Since it reopened this week, they should have access to their funds.

However, many of SVB's depositors had more than $250,000 in their accounts—it is Silicon Valley after all. Therefore, their accounts were not covered by FDIC insurance. Will they get their money back? There is a chance that they will not.

It is unclear how much SVB currently has to cover uninsured deposits. It is likely not enough. The FDIC has issued a "Receiver's Certificate" to the uninsured account holders with the amount in their account that is not covered by FDIC insurance.

The FDIC said it will pay some of the uninsured deposits by next week by liquidating any additional assets held by SVB. However, if the liquidated assets are not enough, many of SVB's uninsured account holders could lose their money for good.

6. Is this 2008 all over again?

SVB's collapse was the largest bank failure since 2008, when Washington Mutual failed with $307 billion in assets. Its failure, along with the collapse of the Lehman Brother's investment bank, triggered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Are we in danger of repeating 2008?

Some argue that we are not in danger of another economic catastrophe, simply because SVB holds less than 1 percent of the nation's assets. However, as Glenn warns, there is a danger of banks repeating the same mistakes as SVP.

SVP wasn't the only bank to use its surplus deposits to invest in U.S. Treasuries, which means that other banks are wrestling with the depleted value of their securities investments due to rising interest rates.

Bank of America, for example, lost $109 billion in their securities investments due to rising interest rates, the most among its peers—and Bank of America is no small fish in the ocean of assets.

Other major banks recorded other massive losses in their securities investments due to rising interest rates. JP Morgan Chase lost $36 billion, Wells Fargo lost $41 billion, Citigroup lost $25 billion, and Goldman Sachs lost $1 billion. If the little banks collapse, will they get the same effort and attention from the federal government as the "big guys?"

The critic may argue that these are still small values given the incredibly large amount of assets held in banks nationwide. However, this is missing the point. Major banks have majorly invested in securities since the pandemic-era skyrocketing rate of deposits. Now those investments are depleted in value.

They can either sell those investments at a loss, or they can wait and hope that they will recover over time. However, if those investments are no longer liquid, what happens when their depositors come knocking? Will they have enough liquid assets to cover a massive bank run? These are the lingering questions that our banks need to address.

As Glenn says, this will impact you—it is only a matter of time. What will you do to prepare?

Glenn's Show Prep