GLENNFebruary 20, 2017

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

In 1970, the woman at the heart of Roe v. Wade — Norma McCorvey --- was a self-proclaimed confused 21-year-old mother who found herself pregnant. Three years later, she would take on the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” and become the prominent plaintiff in the history-making Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade. After the landmark Supreme Court decision, McCorvey dedicated her life to overturning it, and became a notable pro-life advocate.

On Saturday, McCorvey died as a pro-life advocate at the age of 69.

"So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often," Co-host Stu Burguiere said on The Glenn Beck Program.

Of her role in the landmark court case, McCorvery had this to say in 2012:

I’m Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the Roe vs. Wade decision that brought "legal" child killing to America. I was persuaded by feminist attorneys to lie; to say that I was raped, and needed an abortion. It was all a lie. Since then, over 50 million babies have been murdered. I will take this burden to my grave.

Enjoy the complimentary clip above or read the transcript below for details.

PAT: The reason we have abortion on demand today is because of someone named Norma McCorvey, just a young woman who had an unwanted pregnancy and she decided to have an abortion.

STU: Just 21 years old.

PAT: Yeah, just 21.

STU: She herself said she was very confused at the time.

PAT: Right.

STU: She had gone through sort of crazy relationship issues.

PAT: And she was only pushed toward abortion when she went for help. She was pushed toward abortion. And from just about the minute she had the abortion, she regretted it. Actually, did she have the abortion?

STU: No.

PAT: I don't think she even wound up having the abortion, now that I think of this. She didn't even have an abortion.

STU: Yeah. That's the interesting part of the story.

PAT: She actually wound up having her child.

STU: Because the court case took too long.

PAT: That's right.

STU: She had birthed before that. And it wasn't immediately after. She had a period where she was still on board.

PAT: Still okay with it. That's right. That's right. Took a few years.

STU: And advocated for abortion and eventually turned around. One of the interesting things about it is, in the abortion debate, you always hear this: Well, what? So if the life of the mother is in danger, you want there to be no abortion. That's what you want when you say you want Roe vs. Wade repealed.

PAT: And, by the way, first of all, thing one, that almost never happens.

STU: No. Almost --

PAT: If this were 1783, it would happen all the time.

STU: Yeah, yeah, very important in 1700s.

PAT: It isn't the 1700s anymore. Or even the 1800s or even the 1900s. It's 2017. And doctors will just tell you that just doesn't happen. I've talked to doctors who have delivered thousands, tens of thousands of babies. And they've told me it's never happened.

STU: I will say particularly with partial-birth abortion, they say it never happens. You know, a pregnancy can complicate a lot of different things, obviously. And so it's not -- you know, the earlier it is, the more common. But, still, the issue with this particular thing, which I find to be so interesting is that when row -- Jane row, also known as Norma McCorvey, went to the doctor back in the day -- at that time in Texas, abortion was legal in the case of the mother's life being endangered.

PAT: Hmm.

JEFFY: Wow.

STU: That was the only exception they had at the time. But they had that exception before Roe vs. Wade in the state where Roe went to get the abortion. That is how ridiculous this has been twisted.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: That has always been an exception. It is a pre Roe vs. Wade exception. And honestly like an understandable one in that at the very least you're making some decision -- it's at least justifiable in that you might make the decision based on -- you're essentially choosing one life over the other at that point.

PAT: Oh, if it's between my wife and the unborn baby --

STU: Of course.

PAT: -- you're choosing the mother of your children every time. The love of your life.

JEFFY: You have to, right? You have to.

STU: So McCorvey's child was over two years old and had been adopted by the time the Supreme Court actually came out with its ruling. She said, at the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had one, which is something that is left out of the story often.

She -- the case went on for a long time. It wasn't until the mid-'90s that she became a born-again Christian and was received by the Catholic Church. I think she was Catholic for a while. I think she converted from that too. But she remained Christian. She said that she became a real -- a real outspoken opponent of abortion. I mean, think about this. You know, think about -- like what if Rosa Parks was, "You know, I was wrong about those buses." This is a big change. You know what, we should be sitting in the back. I got to be wrong on that one.

That would be a story, I feel like.

PAT: Yes, it would be a story.

STU: I don't think that would have ever happened. But it's an interesting thing in that this is the case, the name that everyone knows, Roe, this is the woman who came out and advocated against this procedure for two decades.

PAT: If it was Wade, you wouldn't have minded as much.

STU: No.

PAT: Because Wade was the person trying to allow her to have the abortion, right?

STU: No.

PAT: Or actually Wade didn't want her to. She was fighting for --

STU: Roe was the one. Yeah.

PAT: But, I mean, it's never talked about that even the person who got this law overturned, all through America and legalized abortion, even she was a very staunch abortion opponent.

STU: So she went as far as to work for an abortion clinic. Okay? She was working at an abortion clinic. And she had an anti-abortion group move in next door to her. I mean, think about this. They always say, "Oh, you shouldn't be able to protest out in front of one of these clinics." Think of this story: They moved in next door. During smoke breaks -- during smoke breaks, someone from Operation Rescue, which is Reverend Philip Benham said she was completely pro-abortion.

They started talking. Slowly, they became friends. And that was kind of the genesis of her conversion. And, I mean, it's an incredible story.

If this was the opposite -- like, for example, you know, some terrible ruling that the person who was involved in it recanted and went the other way. And I say a terrible ruling as far as the left's perspective. This would be the ultimate movie. This woman's story would be an incredible movie telling this incredible conversion.

JEFFY: Conversion.

STU: Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think of a good example of one. But there's been many of those stories, where the person comes out and at first advocates for the wrong side of the policy. And then history proves that they wound up being on the right side in the end because they converted in the middle and took a tough stand and couldn't believe what they previously had stood for. That's this story.

PAT: Right.

STU: It's just a policy they don't like, so almost no one knows it. And --

PAT: You're right. She would be celebrated. I mean, there would have been many, many major motion picture movies released about her.

JEFFY: What's interesting that too is that she began her conversion just by talking, you know, out back, smoking a graduate with the people that were against it next door. Didn't have anything to do with burning cars, throwing signs, hollering, dragging crosses across the street. It was just --

PAT: Killing abortion clinic doctors. None of that extremism.

JEFFY: Right. None of that. None of that.

PAT: How old was she?

STU: She was only 69. And she was in an assisted living facility.

JEFFY: At 69?

STU: Yeah, really -- really sad. Because, you know, was an important voice. The voice, really.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And an incredible thing -- an incredible turn of events. And I still think to this day -- and I've said it before on the air that I think this is going to be looked back in whatever -- 100, 200 years -- I don't know what the time line is, as the slavery of our day. The type of thing that people who believe and advocated for it will be trashed by future generations, the way they trashed the Founders for having slaves. And, again, a lot of that is unfair. And you have to view it in the period of the -- you know, you have to view it in the context of the time where it occurs. But it's the type of thing that will be so unthinkable, particularly as technology advances.

We're to the point now -- we showed a video on Pat and Stu the other day of a new type of ultrasound.

Thank you, Jeffy.

A new type of ultrasound where you can see the baby doing baby things. This is not like it's blurry and you can kind of see the face. They had the 3D ultrasounds that came out, you know, within the last, what? Fifteen years. And now they're kind of common. You can get them. They're more expensive.

But it's like to the point of basically you see the baby playing and turning around and doing all sorts of things that you'd recognize from a baby. And this is at 20 weeks.

JEFFY: Yep.

STU: This technology is going to prove to people that this is a crazy process.

PAT: And you think, wow, that's an active piece of broccoli in there.

STU: No, it's not broccoli, Pat. No, it's going to be a baby. Yeah, it's a baby.

PAT: Wow.

JEFFY: My heart must be working on that carburetor for that Buick moving around.

STU: No, it's not a Buick. It's not a Buick. It's a baby.

PAT: Are you sure?

STU: And over time, technology is working against the, quote, unquote, pro-choice argument here. The more we see these little pieces of broccoli as babies, the harder it is for people to justify this decision.

PAT: Yeah. And it's interesting because Beyonce is being celebrated right now because she's so very, very pregnant. And she's not pregnant with tissue or a Buick. She's pregnant with twin babies. Babies. And they've said it. And she says it. And, well, okay. Then how is it that nobody else is pregnant with babies? They're pregnant with tissue or a fetus or you don't want to say the word.

JEFFY: It's really strange that she's --

PAT: It's a weird phenomenon.

JEFFY: I mean, Beyonce is celebrated for -- because, well, she's the queen. But, I mean, over the past few years, they've really celebrated several -- numbers of celebrities for having babies, that it's this wonderful thing.

Like, what are you talking about?

STU: Well, and that's, of course, because they all know it's true.

PAT: Sure they do.

STU: They all know it.

PAT: They do.

STU: They all realize.

PAT: And that's why I cut them no slack for the time period. Because the time period is 2017. They know what's growing inside the woman and it's a human baby. They know that.

STU: Understood. However, I will say, it's a legal process. Society has decided --

PAT: Still.

STU: And really, the courts have decided that this is a legal process. So it should be viewed within that context. I think there are a lot of people who look -- you know, I'm not thinking about the thinkers. I'm not talking about people who are involved in this debate. You know, the debate as currently constructed is debating about whether it should be allowed before -- or excuse me, only before 20 weeks. I mean, there's -- we're talking -- we're giving you a five-month window to figure out whether or not you're going to keep this thing or not. And that's still considered too restrictive. It's not considered too restrictive in Europe. But it's too restrictive here. So that's completely different.

I think a lot of people who go to an abortion clinic, who grow up in a family where this is approved of, they just don't go into deep thought about it. It's a legal thing. They have a problem. They eliminate the problem.

And that is what -- you know, why it's important for us to continue blabbing about it. I mean, there have been hosts that have banned abortion talk on the air. We didn't talk about it all that often for a decent amount of this show's history. And we've talked about that before. It is important to talk about. It needs to be thought about.

You don't get the pass of, well, I don't know, it's legal, and it would solve my current problem as is. It needs to be considered thoughtfully.

JEFFY: And being against abortion is not hating women.

STU: No.

PAT: It's just the opposite. Just slightly over half of the people born will be women.

STU: Yeah, 27, 28 million would be alive under our policy.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That would not be alive under the left's policy.

PAT: The hateful thing is to terminate all of those women, all of those females. That's the War on Women right there. You know, in Australia -- an Australian politician just said that -- because I guess in Queensland, Australia, they're -- it's still a criminal offense to have an abortion in some circumstances. And some MPs have said they won't support the legislation to decriminalize it. It's only lawful to prevent serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health.

But there's a politician saying that he believes these politicians owe women an explanation. It's a real cop out. If you're voting no, then you're saying it's appropriate for it to remain in the criminal code. Well, yeah, murder should remain in the criminal code.

And they're trying to make a big issue out of this. Because they're acting as if the women are the criminals, when the ones that are charged are the doctors. If you perform -- just like in this country, when there was -- when there was a criminal act involved in the abortion, it was the doctors that were held accountable, not the women.

STU: I see what you're saying. You're saying women can't be doctors.

PAT: Well, okay. Women doctors sometimes could be involved here.

(chuckling)

STU: Unbelievable.

You played that trick on me a few weeks ago. But, yeah, I mean, obviously that's the way it's typically enforced.

But, I mean, really, it's not -- while the legality issue is incredibly crucial. And, you know, when you have something that is -- violates a central tenet of this country being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when you have something that so clearly violates that tenet, I can't -- it needs to be more than legal. Right? It's a situation where we wake up. We talked about this a while ago. In the 1950s, 45 percent of white people said, if a black person moved in next door to them, they'd move. Forty-five percent of white people in a poll said that.

JEFFY: What year was that?

STU: 1954. Mid-'50s.

Now that number -- well, and this is a number that's now 20 years old. I haven't seen an update for it because the poll I saw said only 1996 was the latest they did this. In 1996, it was 2 percent.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: From 45 to 2 percent. That's not because of law. That's not because they passed laws saying that black people must move next to white people.

It's because people -- white people over time realized how dumb their position was. Right? And they had a moral change of their heart, understanding the reality of the situation, which is that you shouldn't move out of your house if black people move in next door. It sounds silly.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: To say that now. Back then it was half of white people said that, almost. Forty-five -- and, you know, we know how difficult it is to deal with realtors and all the paperwork and all the craziness. This is not like I wouldn't go talk to my neighbor if he was black. This is, I would move. I would leave my home if a black person moved in next door. That number goes from 45 to 2 percent. Not because of law. Because people had a change of heart. Because people made convincing arguments over a long period of time. And right now, while it's a very split partisan issue, it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that.

And, you know, a lot of people say, "Well, you know, you should be able to have it for X amount of time. And afterwards, you know, then it has to stop." The majority of the people say no to late terms. And that's good. But you need to be consistent here.

PAT: It's pretty close on abortion at all.

STU: Yeah, it's about split.

PAT: It's about split halfway down the country right now. It's almost 50/50. But I think it's 53/47. Something else. Right in there. So I think we have the momentum right now, and we just need to keep it.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: Good.

VIDEOS

TPUSA's Turning Point tour LIVE with Glenn Beck

In this poignant segment of Turning Point USA's American Comeback Tour live event, Glenn Beck honors the late Charlie Kirk by revealing his private plan to name Kirk as his successor in conservative media, emphasizing Kirk's unparalleled dedication and achievements. Blending themes of faith, history, and personal resilience, Beck shares life principles on forgiveness and truth while unveiling 'George AI,' a revolutionary tool for exploring American history through digitized artifacts and interactive conversations with Founding Fathers.

RADIO

Trump's peace deal: A new era for Israel and Hamas

Israel and Hamas have signed phase 1 of President Trump’s peace deal, paving the path for the release of all remaining hostages, hopefully in a few days. Glenn and Stu explain the significance of this historic deal and what it could mean moving forward.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Oh. Your initial thoughts here on the peace deal?

STU: It's an incredible opportunity. I think it is important to remind ourselves, that this -- these things typically do fall apart. That is essentially your expectation, any time anything like this happens. Part of this is going to be Hamas coming through on promises.

I have very little belief that they are typically able to do such things.

That being said. They probably also -- you know, one of the things -- a friend of mine pointed this out to me. We were going through all of this.

And he said, you know, one thing to think about it: This is, like, not the B team of Hamas. But the R team of Hamas. They've killed so many of the leadership.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah.

STU: These are people making decisions that were not at the top of this organization and had those ridiculous ideological beliefs that would lead you to October 7th. That's not to mean that Hamas, these people that are left are like, "Hey, you want to invite them over for Thanksgiving."

But I do think there's a possibility here that they're like, you know, maybe this life is not here for us.

GLENN: That would be nice if that were true. I don't know if that were true. But it would be really thyself.

STU: I don't know if that's true. I do think there may be a little bit lower ideological commitment, potentially. And also, the idea that some of these people might be able to make this deal and escape to another third country.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: And live life there, in a different way.

GLENN: So the breaking news that just was announced, Israel, their parliament or their cabinet just met or approved phase one of the deal.

And Hamas has just come out and said, they accept phase one of the deal.

That means the hostages will be released either this weekend or Monday.

Any remaining hostage will be released.

STU: I mean, just that.

GLENN: Just that.

STU: If that occurs, it is a massive achievement.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: So far, it is already the greatest opportunity we've had.

And only possible because of his detection to this idea!

GLENN: And his deal-making.

Not just his vision.

But his ability to work all of the parties and find out what all the parties need.

And make it happen.

You know, we're not talking about peace between Gaza, you know, Hamas, and Israel.

We're talking about peace in the Middle East.

STU: Yeah. It's bigger. It's bigger than just Israel.

GLENN: I mean, it's Egypt and Saudi Arabia and -- and Jordan to some extent. And -- and Turkey. All of them getting together and saying, you know what! We'll rebuild Gaza. We want to make it into a very prosperous kind of area. I mean, think of places in Saudi Arabia that are so prosperous. That's the way Gaza could be. So they're all getting together and they're saying, "We will rebuild. We'll oversee. We will try to make everything -- you know, keep everything held."

They will put their money into it, which means they have a lot to lose if it goes awry. And they're all saying, "We can co-exist with Israel."

Three years ago, did you even think that was possible?

STU: Yeah. And, you know, look, there are a lot of places you can go and find non-stop criticism of Donald Trump. They will say terrible things he does, and everything he does is the worst thing ever.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Also, there are plenty of places you can go where you find that everything that he does is the greatest thing of all time.

I hope you realize that's not what we do here. And I -- on a -- I said this -- and you said this as well when we -- when this was unveiled.

Sometimes, you can get -- people are critical of the way Trump handles these situations.
Sometimes. And sometimes there's arguments on that.
Sometimes it's not the best approach.

You know, we were critical of him, for example, how he handled Canada. You know, probably cost Poilievre that election. And I think that's a really bad thing.

GLENN: I do on top.

STU: That being said, this is a great example of where his instincts work perfectly. This is all set up over a long period of foundational stuff from his first term. With the decision he made, to come out and just announce the agreement with Netanyahu. We agreed. We agreed to this peace deal.

Now, in theory, we have no position to agree between these two parties. But he came out and all of the focus had been, look at all the bad things Israel is doing. Look at how bad, they're so evil. They're so bad.

And he said, we agree with Israel. Now we just need Hamas.

And so the world's attention was like, what's Hamas going to say?

Finally, he was able to focus his attention to the appropriate place. To the party that is holding the hostages, to say, hey. How about asking if they want to a freaking cease-fire for once?

He was able to do that. In a way that I think only Donald Trump could achieve. Which leads to this, over a long foundation.

GLENN: And here's another thing.

You know, this guy has walked through wall after wall after wall of fire. Everybody calling him everything. Nazi, every day.

Here's a guy who, you know, in a time period where the whole world is like, the Jews control everything. Donald Trump is run by the Jews.

He not only kept his relationship with Israel solid and helped them, when he thought they were right. But when they were wrong, in his view, he chastised them.

He knew how to do it. And still hold their respect.

And gained the respect of places like Qatar. And say, so Qatar. When he chastised Benjamin Netanyahu and Benjamin Netanyahu had to I think apologize to some degree about what they did in Qatar.

That's when the Middle East went, wait a minute.

He's not being controlled by the Jews! You know what I mean?

That should be a really big wake-up call to everybody who thinks that Donald Trump is just being controlled by the Jews.

No. No. No. He's not.

He does what he thinks is right. And he'll chastise both sides.

And he will support either side. When they're right, to get to a deal. That's good for everybody.

This deal could be amazing.

I don't have any -- and it's not because of this deal.

I happen to -- I read the end of the book. So I know how this ends.

This will not -- you know, this is not --

STU: You skipped ahead?

GLENN: I skipped ahead. I skipped ahead.

STU: Don't ruin anything.

Don't -- no spoiler alerts.

GLENN: I won't. No spoiler alerts.

Let's just say, this might last for a week. It might last for a thousand years. I don't know.

But we will be in this situation again. We all know that. We all know that. But let's take and celebrate peace while we can.

And the hostage is coming back. That is massive. Massive.

And due to Donald Trump.

Today, if you don't like Donald Trump, fine. Fine.

But how do you take this one apart?

Honestly, how do you not claim this is a massive victory, for the whole world?

STU: Well, I can tell you, that a lot of people on the left are rooting for it to collapse, which is a shockingly revealing moment. I mean --

GLENN: Wait. What?

STU: They are -- you know, they're not going to be out there like, we hope this collapse is.

But you know they hope it collapses.

They don't want to give Trump credit for it.

And they would rather have this continue. They would rather have this war go on.

Than admit that the reason it's ending is because Donald Trump was able to negotiate this deal.

That is central!

GLENN: I think anybody who has played politics with the Palestinian, you know, all that stuff. And all the stuff on the streets. That -- that has been a very effective tool for them. And so I would agree.

And they don't want that tool to be taken away.

STU: You think the Hamas wing of the party wants this? You think Rashida Tlaib is all thrilled about Donald Trump's efforts here. They will hear about Ilhan Omar -- how wonderful --

GLENN: Those are extremists.

STU: I mean that. This is a very revealing dividing line on the left. Right?

If there is anything that is ever going to happen, that Donald Trump can be given credit for. That you think this could be clear. John Fetterman. Fetterman has obviously pretty good on this issue. But Fetterman came out, gave a statement that should be basic. Basic. Like, hey, this is good. And I really hope it works. Donald Trump did a good job on this.

That's the type of stuff that should be obvious for everyone to be able to --

GLENN: That's what "Tip" O'Neill would have done. "Tip" O'Neill and Ronald Reagan, they got together. They disagreed. They fought hard, but they had dinner.

Yeah. Because "Tip" O'Neill could say, that was good. That was good. What he did was just good for all of us.

STU: That worked well. Good. I'm glad that happened. You should be glad that happened. We should all be rooting for the success here.

Even if what the -- you know, like, I rooted -- again, I have all sorts of criticisms the way Barack Obama dealt with the Middle East.

Yeah. Plenty of them. And we went over them over and over and over again.

And plenty of issues with specifically the way he went after Osama bin Laden. But on the day that it happened, really happy about.

Very happy that we were able to do it.

Now, look, it's our military that does it. They can say all this stuff too. They can say, oh, well, the real reason is. Blah, blah, blah.

But we can still be happy, that this occurred. And you can still be excited and give credit where credit is due.

GLENN: This is a win for all humankind. For humanity!

For life!

Stopping Hamas from torturing. You know, torturing kidnap victims.

Stopping the bloodshed that was happening because of the war on both sides.

That is a win. Having the possibility of a stable Middle East, at least for a while. That's a win!

That's a win all the way around. Everyone should be happy. I don't care if you like the president or not.

Everyone should be happy that mankind, put one on the chalkboard for all of mankind today.

This is a huge -- never seen -- this is on the good side. Never seen this one before. Didn't see this one coming.

I mean, we should all be able to say, wow!

And thank you. Because he's the -- I really, truly believe, when it comes to negotiating things like this, there is nobody better.

I mean, that's what he does for a living.

And he knows it. He knows how to read people. He knows how to it.

And this is evidence of it.

STU: And he will do things that are so out of the norm. That it resets everybody's thinking. You know, I mentioned --

GLENN: If he wouldn't have done that. If he wouldn't have done that, we wouldn't have all the Middle East signing on to a peace deal.

STU: I respect. What would they have done in a situation like Trump was with Netanyahu?

Their advisers would have said, "Look, this is great. You guys are together on this. Let's go to Hamas. We'll talk to them. We will see if we can get something done. We don't want to ruin it by announcing it publicly. There are times, where that tactic cannot work. But it worked really well here."

He forced them to basically say, "No, we don't want a cease-fire," or, "Okay. We'll go along with this."

And, by the way, you go down this list, there's a lot of stuff -- this is Hamas never, ever having control of this region ever again is built into this agreement. Now they've only talked about -- they're only on phase one here. So we don't know that we get all of this stuff. But like, there's a lot here that really improves the lives of Israelis, of --

GLENN: Palestinians.

STU: Arab Israelis in the region. You know, Palestinians. Other Arabs in the region.

GLENN: Saudi Arabia. Everybody.

STU: Yeah. Not to mention, just globally.

Right? This is a positive.

GLENN: Look what this does.

That's Turkey. So that separates Turkey from Syria, which is right in bed with -- with Iran.

I mean, think about how this box is. If you have the entire Middle East, now operating with Israel, and saying, we have a right to exist. Think about what that means, for this block, now to Iran. Iran doesn't mind being a pariah.

But now, everyone is officially saying, aisled do business with them.

STU: We will choose business over these guys.

That's a big statement in that world.

GLENN: That's a big deal. Big deal.

RADIO

Big investors buying gold: What does this mean for your dollar?

Gold has reached a record high price of over $4,000 an ounce. So, what does that mean for your dollar? Financial expert Carol Roth joins Glenn to explain why this news is so concerning and why many big investors have started to buy gold.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Well, Carol Roth, welcome to the program. How are you?

CAROL: I'm doing great, Glenn! I'm actually celebrating my 26th wedding anniversary today, so it's a blessed day.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Congratulations! Congratulations! It's weird. I'm coming up on my 26th on January.

CAROL: Oh, fabulous. Fabulous. It's a good amount of time to be married, yes.

GLENN: It is. It is. So, Carol. Let's talk about the price of gold hitting --

CAROL: It's over 4,000.

GLENN: Which is nuts. And I don't think people really understand. I don't think the average -- this is my guess, and I want you to correct me. I don't think the average person is buying gold. I think this gold-buying is happening from sovereign funds and central banks, mainly. Also, Asian markets. I don't think Americans really understand what $4,000 an ounce means. Can you explain it?

CAROL: Absolutely. I think the world both, investors and central banks are catching up to the things that you and I have been talking about for years. So, you know, we're ahead. We warned everyone. And now this is a little bit of catch-up. Interestingly, you know, as you noted, the average American is very behind in terms of what gold means.

When you look at Chinese households. When you look at Indian household. There are estimates that each one of those country's households owns up to 30,000 tons of gold at this point. Which to put that in context, the US government owns 8,133 times.

GLENN: So the Indian households, all of them combined, 27,000 tons.

CAROL: Right.

GLENN: What we say we have, is he 8100. Wow!

CAROL: So the households in China and India are really ahead of the curve. When you look at data for the US, it's a little bit hard to get good data. But from what I've seen, the estimates are only about ten to 11 percent of US households at all, have exposure to gold.

Now, I know that your audience is very sophisticated and is ahead of the curve. And I would imagine blows through that number. But just shows how sort of unprepared US households are in general.

GLENN: When you're looking at Indian and Chinese households that own gold. Does that include all the gold jewelry?

CAROL: Yes. Yes. That's actually, particularly in India. One of their preferred ways of procuring gold. Yeah.

GLENN: Okay. So gold has -- gold has shot up over $4,000 in record times. I mean, breathtaking time. What is causing that?

CAROL: Okay. So there are a confluence of factors, and I think the two most important factors, which, of course, are linked. Are what Wall Street is now calling the debt debasement trade. Which they're just caught up. And gave it a cute name.

And changing the global financial order. And they're very much linked.

GLENN: Yeah. Tell me, what is it? The debt debasement? What is that?

CAROL: They're doing the debt debasement trade, which is just basically what you and I have been talking about, which is our unsustainable fiscal position.

GLENN: All right.

CAROL: And what all of the money printing that we've seen over the past 17 years, what that has done to our purchasing power, and how that's going to catch up to us.

So as a reminder, our debt to GDP is at emerging market crisis levels. We were at 120 police levels of GDP.

We're running deficits equivalent to a war-time level. Or recession level, while we still have growth.

Which is crazy. We have interesting interest rate -- or interest payments that are outpacing defense spending.

So everyone is now finally catching on to the fact that this is an unsustainable financial position.

And it is going to be very difficult to get out of. Without there being some sort of additional debasement of our currency. Which is a fancy way of saying, a diminishment of your purchasing power.

What's really crazy. There's a chart that's been going around, and they did kind of a comparison of different asset classes. Price in US dollars, price in gold.

So if I look from the end of September 2018, out seven years, and you look at the top 100 NASDAQ nonfinancial companies. It's called the NDX. In US dollar terms, that is up 236 percent. So you think you're super rich, right?

But in gold terms, solid money that doesn't -- you know, that doesn't have its value debased. It's only up 4.7 percent.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CAROL: Yeah. Of course. The S&P 500 up 133 percent over that period in dollar terms. It's down 27.6 percent in gold terms.

And what's called the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, which is the value of homes, the way that's measured. Dollar terms, 60 percent. Oh, houses. So expensive In gold terms, it's down 50 percent.

In fact, right now, it takes less gold in terms of ounces, to buy the median single-family house, than it has in decades and decades and decades.

So it goes to show, that even though we see these dollars. They're buying less and less. And now, you and I were talking about this forever.

But now Wall Street is catching on. Oh, that's not a great thing. And so in terms of preserving the hard-earned capital, we need something that is that -- that hedge. That mutual hedge that is going to retain its value.

And that's why more investors, institutional investors. Funny enough, a lot of millennials, more than anyone starting to really get in to gold.

GLENN: You know why? Because millennials have not been trained their whole life. Trust the system!

CAROL: Yes.

GLENN: And they see it clearly. And they look at it, and they're like, well, this doesn't make any sense at all. And they're going to spend this.

And they will wreck the dollar and everything else. They just see it without being trained over and over and over again. Like, trust the system. They don't trust the system.

And once you realize, the system is rigged in a million different ways. And the system is not telling you the truth.

I mean, that is amazing. When you look at the stock market. And you say, it's actually down, when you compare it in US dollars. To gold!

What's happening -- let me explain this to the audience. What all that means is: Gold is only going up in dollars. It's staying -- it's staying stable. But it's costing you more because of inflation. The dollars are buying less! So it looks like you're paying more, but you're really not. It looks like the stock market is going up, but it's really not! It's what it costs to get in with dollars. If you're going in with gold. You'll actually see that if it was all done in gold, the stock market is down. The price of housing is town.

It's the dollar. It takes more dollars to buy, than it does with gold, which holds its value.

That is -- if people could understand that one thing, that changes all the conversations of, the government has to do something to make housing more affordable. No, they don't. They have to stabilize the dollar. They have to stop spending so much money.

CAROL: Yeah, I mean, if you think of the three definitions of money, it is a medium of exchange. You know, how you helped to exchange goods.

It's a unit of account, which we say, things are priced in dollars, and it's supposed to be a store value. The unit of account, that you just talked about. My friend Steve Forbes has a great analogy, and he talks about other measurements.

You know, imagine that your clock, you know, one day, at 12 o'clock, you know, means midnight. And another day, 3 o'clock means midnight. Or 6 inches to measure a curtain one day. And then the same measurement is like a foot, a different day.

You can't have -- a consistent measurement if the unit of account continues to change. And that's what we've been seeing here with the dollar. And unfortunately, it has not been to our favor.

Which means, that when you work really hard to earn something and it's valued in a dollar, that over time, that -- that work that you put out, your productivity is worth less and less.

And so what gold is meant to do. It's meant to be Capitol preservation. It's not a risk asset. It's not meant to take on risk. And maybe go up a ton. And maybe go down a ton. It's really meant to be a counterbalance to what you have earned. So that you can preserve your purchasing power.

GLENN: You know, I've been saying this for a long time. That you put your money. And I have money in the stock market. You put the money in the stock market.

If things really go awry, go ahead. You're going to cash out for an awful lot of money. But those dollars. It will be paid back to you in dollars.

Those dollars will be worth less, even though there's more of them stacked up, than that ounce of gold, or, you know, that 10 ounces of gold, or whatever you had!

The stock market is paid in dollars. And so as the inflation goes up.

But gold keeps its value!

Keeps its value and hold it steady.

So, yeah. You will be paying more in dollars if you try to sell your gold. But that will continue to increase while stock markets will go down. Am I right?

CAROL: It's a counterbalance. So if things were to shift, and for some reason, you know, things were to change with the dollars, which we would need a lot of different catalysts. Then your gold goes down. It's a counterbalance, which is why it's important to have that diversification in your portfolio. And to have the gold hedge.

What's interesting, Glenn. Just the history, we're talking about millennials.

You know, they went through the great recession. Financial crisis.

They're kind of keyed into this. But if you think about when we came out of the '70s with this crazy inflation. We came out of the gold standard. It used to be very commonplace for a financial adviser to sit down and say, okay.

We've been through this. And so you should be putting, you know, five to 10 percent of your portfolio in gold. As the stock market took off in dollars. And became this big thing.

And they started seeking fees. That went away. Financial advisers, who don't get paid sometimes at all, when you allocate to gold. Stop recommending it.

GLENN: Yep.

CAROL: And now we're seeing a shift back, now we're seeing, you know, oh, yes. You should have some. Some of the big names out there saying, even more.

GLENN: Ray Dalio just came out and said, 15 percent.

CAROL: Yes, we've seen big names like that, anywhere from ten to 20.

And when they surveyed high net worth investors, which are $250,000 in assets or more, they're averaging right now, 21 percent of their holdings in gold.

So it's a very big flip in recent years, on how this is being viewed bit people who have accumulated those dollars and are worried about them.

GLENN: Okay. So let me just summarize here before we move on. On to some other questions.

That is exactly what my grandfather who lived through the great depression said. What are the people with big large amounts of money doing?

I want to do that. And if I did do that. I would be better off in the great depression.

You just heard it, 20 percent or more, right?

From big dollars.

They're investing in gold. 20 percent!

You should -- you should have some!

CAROL: And it's interesting. Some of the portfolios we're seeing is coming from not only the equity peace, but from the fixed-income peace, which is pretty interesting too.

GLENN: Amazing.

Unmasking Antifa: The Dark Truth Behind Its Well-Funded Network | Glenn TV | Ep 461

The cities of Portland and Chicago are turning into war zones. Federal agents have been ambushed, police have been ordered to stand down, and mayors are defying the Constitution. It’s insurrection in plain sight. Glenn Beck heads to the chalkboard to uncover the hidden support and funding networks propping up Antifa. Glenn debunks the myth that Antifa is decentralized and leaderless, tracing connections from Soros to Tides and other shadowy nonprofits. Plus, independent journalist Nick Sortor joins from outside an ICE facility in Portland, where he was wrongfully arrested by police following attacks by Antifa members.

Glenn's Show Prep

The Legacy of Jane Roe and the Landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Case That Changed America

TPUSA's Turning Point tour LIVE with Glenn Beck

Trump's peace deal: A new era for Israel and Hamas

Transcript

Big investors buying gold: What does this mean for your dollar?

Transcript

Unmasking Antifa: The Dark Truth Behind Its Well-Funded Network | Glenn TV | Ep 461