Glenn Throws in With Chip and Joanna Gaines in the Fight Against Clickbait Ads

After mentioning a salacious ad he saw on TheBlaze claiming Joanna Gaines was leaving HGTV to start her own line of facial cream, Glenn actually got a call from their attorney.

"Well, when I told the story on the air the first day, Chip and Joanna Gaines' attorney called and said we want to talk to you about that ad. And we immediately said we had nothing to do with it. We didn't even know that's what the ad was until it popped up, and we canceled it. They said, 'yeah, we really would like this ad to stop. Can you help us at all?' So I hope that we are assisting them in every possible way because I love these two, and I think what's happening to people --- because it's not just happening to Chip and Joanna Gaines," Glenn said on radio Friday.

Glenn brought in his media attorney Mike Grygiel to talk about what recourse there is and if banding all these celebrities together to fight this type of ad would make a difference.

"I think there's always strength in numbers. I think there is a threshold obligation here too,

Glenn, on the part of the advertising agency," Grygiel said. "That it's authentic and real. Because otherwise, once the genie's out of the bottle so to speak, it's just very, very difficult to prevent this type of thing from spiraling out of control on the Internet. And then once it's out there on all of these websites, it's difficult to get it back in."

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Hello, America, and welcome to Friday. We are so glad that you have tuned in today. There was a commercial or an ad that was running on TheBlaze, and I saw it, and it wasn't a direct advertiser. It's one of these things, it's complicated to say. But basically, an ad agency represents, you know, all of these different people, so you sign on with the ad agency, and then the ad agency just runs whatever ad. Well, there was this ad that was running, and it was about the new face cream and the headline on the ad was Joanna Gaines leaves the show and Chip didn't even know why. And I'm, like, what the hell is -- Chip and Joanna Gaines? What is this? The lies in this are so amazing, I immediately called our sales manager and said cancel this. What is this? How could they possibly get away with a lie? And actually, I said I don't mind if they sell face cream. But not with lies.

Well, when they said wait a minute, you're telling us -- you're telling us that we have to change our ad copy? Yes, it can't be a lie. They canceled. That's a quarter of a million dollar account.

PAT: A month; right?

GLENN: Yeah, a month. And you see this ad everywhere because people don't care.

PAT: Yep.

GLENN: I happen to care. But it's really hard, especially for conservatives who have been blocked out of almost everything to walk away from $250,000 a month. That's a lot of money, obviously. So we've been talking. How does this company get away with this? Well, when I told the story on the air the first day, Chip and Joanna Gaines attorney called and said we want to talk to you about that ad. And we immediately said we had nothing to do with it. We didn't even know that's what the ad was until it popped up, and we canceled it.

They said, yeah, we really would like this ad to stop.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Can you help us at all? So I hope that we are assisting them in every possible way because I love these two, and I think what's happening to people -- because it's not just happening to Chip and Joanna Gaines. It's happening to a ton of celebrities. I want to know what the legal recourse is. How can that ad run? We have one of the best attorneys on the phone with us to answer this question. And we begin right now.

Okay. Let's just read the first paragraph of this ad. Here it is.

PAT: And like you said, this is everywhere. It's all over the Internet. But it starts out by saying it all started last November when Joanna Gaines, host of the popular HGTV show struck a deal with Lori Greiner. Didn't happen.

GLENN: Lie number two.

PAT: The deal states that Joanna's new cosmetic line will be picked up by QVC.

GLENN: Not true.

PAT: Joanna is very proud of her lying.

GLENN: Lie number four.

PAT: There are attributing quotes here. This is more than just a beauty line. This is what every woman has been dreaming of for most of her adult life.

GLENN: Lie number five.

PAT: The rub is HGTV and QVC are rival competitors.

STU: That is currently a lie.

PAT: QVC just bought HSN.

STU: For $2 billion.

PAT: There's a contract that says she's prohibited or promoting any channel or media company. That's probably true. It was later discovered not even her husband Chip knew that she was -- what she was constructing in the background.

GLENN: Okay. Now you're --

PAT: You're starting to get into the relationship.

GLENN: And when I read that, I was, like, no way. No way.

PAT: It goes so far as to say when her secret surfaced it, it caused a rift in her marriage. Jeez.

GLENN: Okay. That does damage. That does damage to their image.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: I mean, I like them because they're such a great family and such a great couple.

PAT: You're talking liable now.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. This is horrible so now we're up to lie seven.

PAT: Because of this, HGTV has decided to carry on the show by himself. In one paragraph.

GLENN: Okay. That's one paragraph. There are more lies to follow.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: We cannot figure out. Because this is not just happening to them. This is happening to -- I saw Stephen Hawking and Anderson Cooper are taking a new brain drug that makes them super smart.

PAT: Really?

JEFFY: Yeah, that's been around.

PAT: There's another one involving Michael Jordan and LeBron James, and they're having some kind of feud, and they're selling a product with it.

JEFFY: My free bottles haven't arrived yet.

GLENN: Mike is truly -- he has a national practice on media law, emphasis on defending news organizations from news gathering to publicly-related claims including defamation, invasion of privacy matters. He is one of the best attorneys in America. When companies see him coming and his firm coming, they realize holy crap. We have the big dogs coming after us. He is my attorney, and I can't speak highly enough about him. So we called him up and asked him how do they get away with this? Mike, welcome to the program.

MIKE: yeah, good morning, Glenn, and thank you very much for the kind words. They're much appreciated. Well, the answer to the examples you've raised on the air is that they really are unlawful and the law has recognized what's known as the right of publicity. And really, what that boils down to is each individual person has a legally protectable interest in their name, their image, their likeness, and their voice. So, for example, if I'm selling cars or a product or a service in Dallas Fort Worth metro area, I could not take a picture of Glenn Beck and put it up on a billboard for motorists to see where you're touting the product or service, unless I had your express written authorization to do that. And the reason is obvious. That you have a recognizable brand value and identity that has commercial value in the marketplace, and you and you alone should be able to control the dissemination of your image for commercial marketing purposes, and you should be able to collect and monetize that. You know, typically, of course, this occurs with celebrities and people whose identities have recognized market value, although in most jurisdictions, no one can do that to say me either, although I obviously don't -- do not have a recognized marketability factor or quotient in my own persona.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on, Mike. So here's the thing. I have seen these everywhere and, you know, when I first saw the one about the brain drug, I wrote to Anderson, and I'm, like, oh, so that's what it is, huh? And he was, like, these are so obnoxious. Joanna and Chip, they called our office and said we're going to track these people down because they keep just shuttering their business, and I guess they'll shutter it and then open it up. And somehow or another, they're getting away with it, and I don't know why. And on top of it, institutions like me, like or the Blaze, we took this ad unbeknownst to us because it was just in a service that you buy the service, and then they from the ads with what they're selling. When I saw it, we took it down. It cost us a fortune to lose that, and everyone else is taking it. So there's money being made by the people that are doing the face cream. There's money being made by all the media outlets that are taking this. There's money being made by the agencies that are representing this, and they know that there's somehow or another a game being played and all the celebrities that are involved don't want to spend the money trying to track those guys down because there's obviously not deep pockets or the pockets are so well protected in shell companies that there's nothing to go and get. How do you stop it?

MIKE: Well, that's really a difficult question. And I think you're putting your finger on the real problem, Glenn, today for most celebrities who do have recognized commercial value and appeal in their persona. With the proliferation of these examples on the Internet, it's very difficult to monitor for first thing. And then if you are able to discover these types of things, it's an expensive proposition sometimes because they're all over the place. So most of the time if you're able to identify a truly unauthorized ad where somebody is using your image and your likeness for a commercial purpose, you have not consented to or authorized, you can go to court and get an injunction whereby the court would order the person who is displaying this. A website or something to cease and desist to continue to publish the ad. As you correctly point out, however, that can be a not expensive ask sometimes inconvenient proposition that doesn't fully answer the Whack-a-Mole problem. Once you get one of them down, it pops up again some place else.

GLENN: So that's what I want to -- I want to concentrate on that for a second. What they do, I'm sure, and I don't know the case of this company. But what it appears to be is, you know, they'll just make a quick 501(c)(3) or whatever -- is that the right thing? Yeah, a corporation, an S Corp, a quick S Corp, a shell corporation of some sort, they'll put limited resources in it, they'll buy it, but they won't keep any money in it. And then if you sue that company, there's nothing really to win. And the people just leave to go do it again under some other company name in some other way. How do you get to the people when you know their intent is bad, you know? You want that. You want that protection from a corporation in some cases. But when you have really bad guys using the system, is there anything to get to the actual perpetrators?

MIKE: It can be really difficult, and I had a case a few years ago for a very prominent professional athlete, a tennis player. And his name and image was being used to promote a rather unsavory product. And he in no way authorized this. He did not want the association with his identity in the market embezzle that it devalued his own sponsorship abilities, and we ended up tracking this down, and it was some company offshore, you know, down in the Cayman Islands, and, thankfully, we were able to get the ad shut down on the website because we got a court order and went to Internet service providers like Google and said you can't display this anymore. But being able to recover actual financial damages from the perpetrators is extraordinarily impractical and very unlikely.

GLENN: So, Mike, let me just ask you an off the wall question. And you know me. I don't need another project, and I don't need -- I just don't need more hassles in my life. But this is -- this is something that really bothers me because when I saw it on TheBlaze, if we don't have a way to say to agencies "You cannot lie. These things are just going to keep coming through and slipping through the cracks, and it hurts my credibility as a news organization.

MIKE: Sure.

GLENN: Most people don't care. It also bothers me that people like Chip and Joanna. If people don't say anything and try to help these guys, the Tom Brady's and Michael Jordan and Anderson Cooper and even Stephen Hawking, the next people will be us. And is there a way -- would you be interested to see if we reach out to all of these people? I would like to as a media company just be a part of something that is trying to enforce truth in advertising. Is it possible? Would it help if everybody got together and tried to stop it?

MIKE: I think there's always strength in numbers. I think there is a threshold obligation here too,

Glenn, on the part of the advertising agency. They should have some up front ability --

GLENN: Oh, they didn't care.

MIKE: Before placing an ad.

GLENN: They didn't care.

MIKE: That it's authentic and real. Because otherwise, once the genie's out of the bottle so to speak, it's just very, very difficult to prevent this type of thing from spiraling out of control on the Internet. And then once it's out there on all of these websites, it's difficult to get it back in.

GLENN: Mike, if you could do me a favor, independently like to reach out to these people and see if they're interested in working together. And I don't want to lead it or anything else. But if you are so good. And if it's not you, maybe you know who is that somebody can make a dent. Because if it is the advertiser, we have to go after the ad agencies. Somebody needs to protect truth.

MIKE: Yeah, there should be accountability here and substantial measures often happens with technology. Sometimes things outstrip or outpace the ability of the legal system to provide an effective remedy. And here I think it's probably a situation that merits consideration from those that are involved because for a -- someone who has really worked hard, achieved success to be associated with an unauthorized product or service that may actually be disreputable can obviously cause damage to that person's market value and reputation. And the legal system should be able to find a way to stop that sort of thing from happening.

GLENN: Mike, thank you so much. I appreciate it, Mike.

MIKE: Yep. Appreciate it, Glenn. Take care.

GLENN: My attorney on first amendment and speech and investigative issues Mike is just fantastic. Now this. By the way, chip and Joanna, we love you, and we want to help you any way we possibly can.

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

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

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

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

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

What did she ask?

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

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

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

What solutions did the AG offer?

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

Pat's take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video above to find out more.

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

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

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

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

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

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, How To Get Started?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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