Tomi Lahren: I'm Brave Enough to Put Myself in a Position Where I'm Going to be Attacked

December 01, 2016

WRITER

A ridiculously-titled article from GQ Magazine labels Tomi Lahren of TheBlaze the 'queen of the alt-right.' The article follows an on-air interview Tomi did as a guest on The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.

"That is a ridiculous title for her. She was a Marco Rubio supporter. There's no evidence of that at all," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Thursday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Additionally, during the interview with Noah, the host deliberately misinterpreted Tomi's comments about the Ku Klux Klan, painting her as downplaying or being ignorant of the group's horrific activities.

"This is what I'm trying desperately to beg the press not to do. Please, no one will listen to who the alt-right is. This is five percent of the right. No one will listen to who those people are if you paint the brush that everyone is alt-right. Because they're not. Tomi Lahren is not," Glenn said.

Tomi joined Glenn on air to discuss the interview with Trevor Noah and how she's ready, willing and able to take the heat.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Listen to the first hour of the podcast today, where we showed you what happened with Tomi Lahren last night in GQ, based on a Trevor Noah interview on The Daily Show. Which, he is just horrible.

But she was denounced as the queen of the alt-right. Tomi Lahren is not an alt-righter. She is not. And -- she is a Marco Rubio supporter, for the love of Pete.

And while we disagree on a lot of things, this is why Donald Trump won. Because people are so sick of the press getting away, editing, and saying whatever they want. The big gotcha moment was her saying -- and I'm just going to give it to you like the press is, "So what did the KKK do?"

What did the KKK -- well, if you don't know, I can't help you. That's the way the press is reporting it.

Let me give it to you in context. Look at what Black Lives Matter is doing. They're calling for the death of a group of people. They are terrorizing people. They are setting cities on fire. Well, tell me, what did the KKK do?

Well, gee, now, that's different, isn't it?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And that's why the press is despised. And until the press corrals themselves and starts looking at themselves, nobody is going to listen to them when they say, "This person is good. This person is bad."

Tomi Lahren is with us now from the Blaze. Hello, Tomi, how are you?

TOMI: I'm doing well. Thank you, Glenn.

You know, we're used to this as conservatives. We're used to this as being outside of the mainstream idea. So I knew -- I had an idea that this was probably going happen. But at least we put ourselves out there, right?

GLENN: No. And I actually thought you did well.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And actually so did GQ. I mean, GQ wanted to hate you. You know, they took their typical shots, but they couldn't even hate you. In fact, they said you didn't give them the stereotypical angry, you know, right-wing hatemonger that they were obviously wanting.

TOMI: Well, I smiled through the whole thing.

And I have to say, the way that some of Trevor Noah's fans and others on the left and what have you are responding to me is vile in many ways. I've seen Twitter.

But Trevor himself, after the show, I was actually very impressed with the way he handled me. He said, "Hey, you know, I know we disagree on a lot of things, but I'm glad we could have the conversation."

Same thing happened with a few folks from the left today saying, "Hey, I think you did a good job. We disagree, but you held your own." I smiled through the whole thing. I was in obviously a tough crowd. I don't think that there was a conservative or a supporter in the crowd.

GLENN: Oh, no.

PAT: No way.

TOMI: And I just smiled and -- and took it. Because at least I'm brave enough to put myself in a position where I'm going to be attacked. And I think I held my own. And I'm happy with it.

GLENN: Oh, I think you did more than hold your own, myself. And Trevor Noah was -- I mean, he's just horrible. And I'm sure he's a nice guy and everything else. But he was just horrible.

And when it came to you -- we seem to feel this way. Did you feel this way? It was like he wasn't even looking at you. He couldn't make eye contact with you.

TOMI: He -- I think -- and I don't want to speak for him because I don't know what's in his heart and his mind. But I feel that a lot of times -- and you know this better than anyone, Glenn: The liberals, they want to come at you. They want to demonize you. And so they don't want to humanize you. They don't want to look at you and say, "Hey, you're an actual person." They want to look at you and say, "You're a racist. You're a bigot. You're the alt-right." And if they look at you and actually engage with you, it makes it harder for them to put you in that pigeonhole. So I think there's some of that going on.

PAT: Yeah. Yeah.

GLENN: Wow.

TOMI: I tried to laugh. I tried to have a good conversation. On the outset, I was told it was supposed to be late night comedy. We were supposed to have fun and disagree.

And then sat down, and right in with, "Why are you so angry?" And I sat down thinking, "I'm not angry. I'm typically a pretty happy person. But I guess if we want to go there right off the bat, that's fine. I'll play that game."

PAT: Tomi, did you ever ask anybody on the staff when did Trevor Noah ever engage in comedy?

(laughter)

PAT: Did you ever ask that question? Because that's a legitimate --

GLENN: Yeah, because we haven't seen any comedy coming from him. And neither has America. Neither did GQ.

They said, "It wasn't funny. But that was okay." Yeah, it's only okay because it's Trevor Noah. That's what you expect. But anyway...

TOMI: But to disagree with a liberal or you disagree with anyone on the left or anyone in Black Lives Matter or whatever, you disagree with them, and you're automatically a racist. They disagree with you, and they're a social justice warrior. And they really came at you, and they did, you know, some kind of a great deed for their cause. But as soon as I open my mouth -- it doesn't matter what I would have said. If I would have went out there and said, "I love the Black Lives Matter movement," it wouldn't have mattered. I mean, they were already determined to paint me the way that they wanted to. And at the end of the day, we're used to it. So I'm not going to cry myself to sleep.

STU: Tomi, I know that they heavily edited the interview. I think it was 26 minutes long, and they only aired maybe six minutes of it.

GLENN: What a surprise.

STU: So there was a lot taken out of it.

But one of the more amazing parts of what they showed on TV was he repeatedly said to you he could not understand your point. He -- and he kept saying it. I can't understand it. I've tried so many times to understand your point, that Colin Kaepernick, the NFL quarterback who kneeled during the national anthem to protest it, your point was, he has a First Amendment right to do it, but I disagree with him doing it.

How can you be for speech and against speech? He legitimately could not comprehend that point.

Did he ever at any point clarify, or did you ever get to an understanding on what seems to be a pretty basic First Amendment point?

TOMI: Well, he wouldn't listen to me. And that's the thing, he kept saying -- and everyone still says today, "You didn't answer his question. How is a black man supposed to protest?"

Again, I was telling him, I'm not talking about his right to protest. I'm saying, I think the way he did it and the outlet in which he chose to express it, being our flag and our anthem, was wrong in my opinion, and I voiced that.

But he didn't want to listen to what I said. And then he just kept continuing, "How should a black man protest?"

Well, Trevor, quite honestly, Colin Kaepernick didn't vote, so there is one way that a black man can protest in an appropriate way. I mean, that would be a start, right?

But it's all -- it's all their narrative. I don't think it would have mattered what I would have said.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: Because the left, they fail to understand because they don't want to understand. I -- you and I both have this in common: We legitimately want to understand the worldview of the left, of the liberals, of opposing views. We want to put ourselves in that position to strengthen our own arguments.

The left doesn't seem concerned with doing that. They are happy where they sit. They are happy and comfortable, and they feel like they're martyrs for the cause.

But I think like you said at the beginning, that's changing now. You know, we've got Donald Trump as president. Love him or hate him, you've got a lot of Americans that voted for him and, like you said, that are just sick and tired of this crap.

PAT: Uh-huh.

TOMI: We are tired of being labeled. We are tired of being scapegoated for everything. And we're tired of not being listened to. So the times are changing. And I think that the Trevor Noahs of the world are going to start seeing that.

GLENN: Well, here's the thing: I was really impressed with Penn Jillette when he went to the atheist, what was that? Reason rally.

TOMI: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah. They do every year.

GLENN: And it's all these atheists. And he got up. And what he said was really, I thought, impressive.

He said, "We cannot hate or treat people the way we feel we've been treated. We feel that we were yelled at, called names, and everything else. We can't do that to anyone."

In other words, let's love our Christian brothers and our Hindu brothers and everybody else who said, you know, atheists are bad people. Let's show them how we should react.

Do you feel you did that last night with Trevor Noah?

TOMI: Right. I think I smiled through it. We had a good conversation after the fact. I don't have any beef with the guy. I expected it to be that way.

And, you know what, at least they were kind enough to have me on the show. I appreciate that much.

Sometimes, as you know, they attack us, and they don't even bring us on. And they just want to attack us. So at least he brought me on. I hope to do more of these things. I hope that they --

GLENN: You realize, though, Tomi --

TOMI: What's that?

GLENN: You realize -- you realize that you don't need them. They need you. You know that, right?

TOMI: Well, and there was a part -- if you look at the extended interview, where he tried to tell me that I was now the mainstream because I pulled big numbers on Facebook. That doesn't make me the mainstream. It means that I'm more viewed than you are, but that doesn't mean I'm the mainstream.

GLENN: Right.

TOMI: I've been able to dupe the mainstream. So that doesn't make me a part of it. It makes me smarter than it.

(laughter)

GLENN: Tomi, was it worth doing?

TOMI: It was. Any time you're able to have these conversations, it's worth doing. At least it got people talking.

Like I told him last night, I could have gone on Fox News and then watched them kiss my butt. I chose not to do that. I chose to put myself in an environment where I knew I'd be challenged, and I will never regret that.

GLENN: Okay. Tomi Lahren, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

PAT: That's great.

TOMI: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Tomi Lahren. You bet. From TheBlaze. An up-and-coming, I mean, media powerhouse.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Tomi Lahren with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show.

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