This Liberal Comedian Is Trying to Unite the Country in Her New Show

Comedian Sarah Silverman hasn’t held back when it comes to her dislike for President Donald Trump. But with her new show on Hulu, “I Love You, America,” Silverman hopes to reach out to Americans who voted for Trump as well as the rest of the country.

“When we’re divided, we’re easily controlled,” she said on the show. “So the challenge for us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other just as best we can.”

On today’s show, Glenn commended Silverman’s goal of trying to bring people together instead of further dividing them. But he added a caveat: You can only build bridges with the opposite team after you’ve held your own side accountable.

“I agree with her; however, it doesn’t work if you’re only going to single out the other side,” Glenn said. “You have to single out your side.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So comedian Sarah Silverman, who is an outspoken opponent of I think everything, at least everything that is conservative, says that she -- she considered stockpiling food and weapons last November because of Donald Trump.

Now, listen to this.

SARAH: When it was finally official and Trump had won, I felt something I had never felt before, which was this overwhelming survival-based fear. You know, I had the sudden urge to buy a gun and stockpile water and weapons and canned guns. And in an instant, I became like a liberal doomsday prepper. And for the first time, I felt an actual kinship to the far right militia person who, you know, thought Obama would end the world. But I realized, it's that. It's that feeling of fear that makes us the same. You know, we are, all of us, both paralyzed and motivated by fear. We fear the unknown.

And that's why Trump's campaign was so effective. He took our fears and our rage, and he gave us a place to put it all. And that place was each other.

And when we're divided, we're easily controlled, right? So the challenge for all of us is to resist divisiveness and try to see ourselves in each other, just as best we can.

GLENN: Okay. So I think this is a really good thing. It's a good first step. But will she go as far and say, "And so I've reflected on what perhaps we have done on our side?"

And, you know, placing the fear of that's just the way white people will do you. Did she reflect on that?

Because I agree with her. However, it doesn't work if you're only going to single out the other side. You have to single out your side.

STU: Yeah. Because, I mean, you've said things similar to what she's saying there.

GLENN: Yes. I've said -- right after the election, I said, look, we have an opportunity because they, for the first time, feel as though the entire country and our civilization could slide off the cliff, where they thought that was insane before. They now know how fragile things are, and they are afraid of the same thing you are afraid of, for the opposite reason.

STU: And my instinct hearing that, knowing Sarah Silverman and what she said over the past several years is to dismiss it. Because, well, are you even -- it's so inconsistent to where she has been and the things she has said publicly about politics recently.

But, I mean, A, I should resist that instinct, right?

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If she's changed -- if she's decided she did things wrong in the past, great. But you're right, you have to take that additional step. People dismissed you when you said things like that.

GLENN: But I took the initial step.

STU: You took the initial step to say, look, I've done things that I don't like, in the middle of this. You take responsibility for whatever you can find that you feel that you may have done wrong.

GLENN: Yeah. And you have to do that. You have to do that before you do the other side.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: You have to say, look, I'm going to take on my own side, I want to take on me, before I even take on my own side. I will take on me. What am I responsible for? How did I miss it? What did I do?

And, quite honestly, I think be generous on the give yourself an extra helping of, you know, I made mistakes.

STU: Yeah. Like think of the border thing for a minute. If the left came to you and they said -- they're always saying, we need to let these people who are illegals become legals. Become citizens. You have to give them passes on their illegal activity from before.

And if they came to you, not and just said it, but actually secured the border and actually went through and there were no new illegal immigrants coming in and they were arresting the ones that tried. And they were very -- like they actually took steps on their own --

GLENN: I would be for it. I would be for it.

STU: I don't know that I would be for it, but you would at least consider it, right?

GLENN: I would be willing to say, okay. We're not going to call more problems by doing this. Because we have -- and I would need something physical. Because I wouldn't believe that the next guy is coming in and he's --

STU: Right.

GLENN: You build a wall -- the only reason why I want a wall is because I don't believe that the presidents will be consistent from one to the next. And so if you actually secured our nation and you actually took it seriously, then I would -- I would seriously consider that.

STU: Yeah. And if they said --

GLENN: But not until.

STU: -- look, this is our fault. We were the ones that were really light on border security. That's why these people are. We realize now it is a problem. But as everyone will admit, there are people here that seemingly have lasted multiple decades and haven't been committing additional crimes. Maybe they're okay. Let's talk about those people.

GLENN: Yep. I would be there.

STU: Especially if you take responsibility for the problem. It was our fault, because we didn't allow you to have border security because we kept saying you were racists.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: If they came to you with that sort of pitch, at least you would consider it.

GLENN: Yes. Absolutely. And I think most Americans would.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's just, it requires both sides to own it. And none of them are going to own it.

So here's a story: Late June, President Trump hosted a group of Native American tribal leaders at the White House and urged them to, quote, just do it. And extract whatever they want from the land they control.

The exchange turned out to be an unusual vivid window into almost kingly power that Donald Trump sees himself as holding, which he has begun describing with increasing bluntness.

This scene was recounted by a source in the room and confirmed by another at the White House. The White House has not disputed this story. The chiefs explained to Trump that there was regulatory barriers preventing from getting at their own energy. Trump said, but it's me. The government is different now. Obama is done. And we're doing things differently here.

There was a pause in the room. And the tribal leaders looked at each other.

Chief, chief, Trump continued, addressing one of the tribal leaders. What are they going to do? Once you get it out of the ground, are they going to make you put it back in there? I mean, once it's out of the ground, it can't get back in there. You just got to do it. I'm telling you chief, you just got to do it.

The tribal leaders looked back at one of the White House officials in the room, perhaps somebody from the White House counsel's office could answer: Can we just do that?

The official equivocated, saying the administration is making progress and has a plan to roll back various regulations.

Trump interjected again: Guys, I feel like you're not hearing me right now. We've got to just do it. I feel like we have no other choice. Countries are doing it. China is not asking questions about all this stuff. They're just doing it. Guys, just do it.

Okay. So this is what the left fears. And this is what the right fears.

The right fears somebody who is going to say, just take these rights away. Just do it. I know we can't -- just do it. I'm here. It's different now.

No. There are laws. Now, the left is afraid of a president who will just tell the Indian chiefs or somebody else, just do it.

No. Where we're supposed to come together is not on the man or the party, but the principle. There is a law, the president is not a king, you don't just do it.

You don't pass it to find out what's inside it. You don't lie to the American people to sell stuff. And you don't just do it through executive order or just because you say so.

We're a nation of laws, not of men. And the idea that we have to arm ourselves against a -- an out-of-control government, because that's what she's saying.

Now all of a sudden I understand guns. Well, I could say back to Sarah, well, wait a minute, Sarah. Are you going to fight the tanks? Are you going to fight the missiles? Are you going to fight the drones? Because that's what they always say.

Yeah, if I have to. If it's a fascistic government, yes. If it's a totalitarian government, yes.

If it's a religiously -- a religious totalitarian government? Yes. If it's an atheist totalitarian government? Yes. If it's a constitutional government, based on this Constitution? No. No, I'm not.

Because I have nothing to fear from that government. But we are not that government. And we are not moving in the direction that strengthens that government. We are moving away from that government.

And this is where the left and the right should be able to come together. I don't want to regulate you. Don't you regulate me.

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

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

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

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

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

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

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

What happened?

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

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

What did she ask?

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

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

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

What solutions did the AG offer?

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

Pat's take:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the video above to find out more.

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

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

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

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

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

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

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

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

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

(Source

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

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

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

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

TreasuryDirect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, How To Get Started?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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