A Caller Shares a ‘Liberal’ Perspective on Roy Moore vs. Al Franken

Each of us brings a different set of biases to the table, and sometimes it’s just best to be honest about it.

While Doc sat in for Glenn on today’s show, a caller named Kevin shared his perspective on the sexual misconduct allegations that are disrupting Washington. Listen to his chat with Doc (above) for some blunt commentary from a Democrat voter.

He acknowledged that Republicans are more likely to overlook accusations that Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore tried to seduce a 14-year-old girl and Democrats are prone to make excuses for Sen. Al Franken after a photo was released showing him groping a woman.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

DOC: It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. You can join the program. 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. Or online. Join me on Twitter. It's @DocThompsonshow. By the way, Facebook is Facebook.com/DocThompsonShow. We're talking about the latest allegations. I spent a lot of time on it today. But a little bit of sexual improprieties. And the big one last night was Charlie Rose. It's pretty awful if true. There's a lot of salacious stuff. Some of the other ones have been less significant. You know, people like Ben Affleck. He may have touched me inappropriately as we passed, you know, on the set, or something. Charlie seems systematically, again, if proven true.

Then we also heard that John Conyers may have settled a case for $27,000, when he was a sitting congressman in Michigan. John Conyers, you remember, they say you got to pass the bill. They say, vote for -- what was it? Study the bill? Research the bill. Read the bill.

KRIS: Read the bill.

DOC: How are we going to read the bill? That was John Conyers back in the day. Served for 200 years or whatever it was. John Conyers accused of settling for $27,000. The interesting thing, Conyers' settlement came out of his budget, his office budget in DC. Unlike the other 264 allegations for sitting members of Congress over the last 24 years -- or, 20 years. Over 20 years, Congress has paid off 264 people, from a special slush fund that they've created.

KRIS: Can I correct you on that?

DOC: Yes.

KRIS: Because it wasn't Congress. We paid for that. We paid for that.

DOC: Thank you. Thank you, Kris Cruz. We have paid into this slush fund, where Congressmen get to act -- in many cases, it's probably going to be true -- inappropriate. People challenge them on it. And we have paid $17 million to 264 cases.

That averages about $64,000 every four weeks. Every four weeks for the last 20 years, we have paid 64 thousands dollars because congressmen acted inappropriately or were accused of it.

Just another perk they get. Let me go to the phone lines now in Illinois. Kevin, thanks for holding here on the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: Hey, I'm doing pretty good. How are you?

DOC: Doing well, sir. Thank you.

CALLER: Well, let me first state in full disclosure that I am a liberal.

DOC: Oh, my gosh.

CALLER: I'm a liberal.

DOC: I appreciate the disclosure, sir.

CALLER: That's fine.

So everybody is going to see this through the lens of me being a liberal, which is fine. Because I see things through the lens of you being a conservative. So...

DOC: Real quick, side note, Kevin, that's how it's supposed to be. Because my frustration is when Fox and MSNBC and whoever else doesn't admit and lead with their biases, because it's like they're trying to trick people. Whereas, you know, just lead with your bias. Just tell me who you are, you know.

CALLER: Which is exactly what I did. So I'm going to tell you that my liberal bias says that Al Franken's infracture (sic) is not so bad that he should be kicked out of Congress. Because I want him in, because I'm a liberal.

Now, my liberal bias says that Ray (sic) Moore's infractions are severe.

DOC: Because you don't want him in.

CALLER: And should not be in Congress. Now -- now, we have to weigh these things, about how bad the infractions are. If it were found out that Ray Moore were a Jeffrey Dahmer, well, clearly that about trumps all political efforts, right?

DOC: Sure, mass murderer, absolutely.

CALLER: But Kellyanne Moore (sic) implied that it's sort of okay to assume he might be because we need his vote.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: She did that just a couple days ago.

DOC: Uh-huh.

CALLER: And I would say with Al Franken, it's sort of okay that he did these little jokes. You know, faux groping and maybe kissing, because I need his vote.

DOC: Yep.

CALLER: So we really have to see that through this lens.

DOC: No, I agree. And we have to be consistent with this. And that's the reason I break down each case. And, I mean, Al Franken's, half of his have been proven because of the photo. Half of them, the kiss is be the not proven. That's still just an allegation. Roy Moore's have not been proven, although it's looking real sketchy for the guy. And I think he probably did based on the, well, I always asked their mom.

CALLER: Come on, man. Come on, man. You know that Ray Moore is guilty. You know it. Everybody knows it.

DOC: Well, no, Kevin, this is what I'm saying, I believe he is. Although it's still allegations. Half of Al Franken's -- I just admitted, I believe he probably kissed her. But that's still just an allegation. The only difference with the picture is we have proof of that. Now, Kevin Spacey, still an allegation. Much of Harvey Weinstein, still allegations.

CALLER: Proven or not?

DOC: Most of those are still allegations. I don't know if there's any proof of his. And, by the way, I would even accept proof in a court of law. So if Harvey Weinstein gets convicted of something, I go, that's proof. If Roy Moore does too --

CALLER: We don't have time to deal with that with Ray Moore. The election is coming in three weeks. There's no chance for a court of law at that point. We have to decide that right now.

DOC: Right. I know. It's frustrating.

It's likely going -- I mean, he's -- his competitor, Doug Jones is leading by a pretty good margin by most polls.

CALLER: Look, Roy Moore is guilty. This is clear. Look at the handwriting. All these handwriting experts. Give me a break. He wrote that in the yearbook. That's obvious. Okay? Maybe the woman added a line about where it was exactly. But this is just a red herring. And you know it. And everybody --

DOC: Well, wait a minute. You still have to admit, it's still an allegation.

CALLER: Okay. It is. It can't be proven. I don't know why Gloria Allred doesn't submit that to a handwriting expert because it's obvious to me that it's true. Just give it up and let an independent handwriting expert verify that he wrote that.

DOC: Now, do you say the same thing -- are you holding -- and I'm fine, as long as there's consistency. If somebody says, Roy Moore is guilty and therefore should not serve. That's fine. You're entitled to my opinion. My frustration is when you wouldn't also include Al in it. I believe both of them -- both of them are just allegations at this point. With that extra caveat that part of Al Franken's have been proven true. You say that about Roy Moore. You would support someone who did that. Do you still support Al Franken serving?

CALLER: Well, it depends on the severity of his offense.

DOC: Okay. Yeah.

CALLER: Now, I'm pro-liberal. So if this offense is not too severe, if he did a little joke, this is an SNL joke, you know, it's bad, but not disqualifying.

DOC: The allegations against Roy Moore seem more severe because the allegations --

CALLER: A 14-year-old. Underage.

DOC: Exactly. Right. Right.

CALLER: Way more severe.

DOC: Right. Right. However, based on what so many progressives and liberals lead with, when it comes to allegations about, you know, the whole Me Too campaign and how women are second class citizens and need the extra attention and whatever, I would say that based on your philosophies, Al Franken needs to be held accountable even for the joke.

CALLER: He does need to be held accountable even for the joke. Absolutely. Look, I am not so partisan that I don't think a wrong is a wrong, when it's a wrong. Okay? But should he be kicked out? I don't think so. I don't think so. If that were true, then half the Congress would be kicked out. Okay?

DOC: Yeah. And, listen, I'm fine with jokes like that. Again, Kevin, I'm just looking for the consistency person to person. So if you lead with your philosophy --

CALLER: It's just not the consistency. It's the severity of the --

DOC: Well, there's consistency within the severity of all that.

CALLER: If what Bill Clinton did was true, then he should be kicked out. And I'm a Democrat. I'm the first to admit that if someone did something seriously wrong --

DOC: Right.

CALLER: -- even if it was my party, they have no business in my government. Even if it means that I lose the vote to what I want to happen. Now, that's what bothers me about Kellyanne.

DOC: You know, and, Kevin, you're the type of person that I -- that I want to deal with. You're the type of person that I want to have those discussions with. And we can find common ground. If you're willing to hold your own people accountable and parties that you would normally support with as little as bias as possible and be consistent like that, that's -- that's what's missing right now. You're the type of person I want to talk to. You're my fellow American.

CALLER: We are all Americans. And I believe there's more commonality between us than most people would like to believe.

DOC: I mean, Kevin, we can both admit Glenn Beck is overweight, right?

(laughter)

DOC: I'll take that as a yes. Kevin, thanks for the call. Have a happy Thanksgiving, buddy.

What was that?

KRIS: Really?

DOC: I'm trying to find common ground here.

KRIS: And you find it on saying that our boss is fat?

DOC: I didn't say fat. I said overweight. He's big-boned.

KRIS: Okay.

DOC: He's big-boned. He's husky. He may have a medical condition. I don't know. I'm just saying overweight, for his own concern. You know, for his own health. I'm concerned about this.

KRIS: Wow.

DOC: Well, I couldn't start with one of the more nuanced things. You have to go to the obvious things, right? Look, we can all admit that the fourth Indian Jones should not exist and is reprehensible. Kal, am I right?

KAL: I don't even speak of it. I don't know --

DOC: Exactly. See that's what I'm saying. You got to go with those big ones, then you get closer and closer to the more difficult ones.

KAL: I disagree with your last statement completely.

KRIS: Yes. Our boss is not fat.

KAL: Not fat at all. He's not overweight at all.

KRIS: He's fantastic. He's awesome. He's good.

DOC: Just letting you go here. Just letting you go. Just letting you go. All right.

KAL: His hands are very, very slender as he writes my paycheck.

KRIS: Yes. Yes. And when he gives me a hug, I literally can get all around him. He can't get around me.

KAL: I don't know about that.

KRIS: Oh, really?

DOC: Okay. All right. All right. So you're saying Glenn Beck is thin then?

KRIS: Yes, he's thin.

DOC: Kal, do you say he's thin?

KAL: I'm sorry, what? These headphones are not working.

DOC: All right. Move on. Well, I was trying to start with something that was more obvious. Perhaps I made a mistake there. All right. Let's go to line 11. Bill in the great state of Florida, thanks for calling the Glenn Beck Program. How are you?

CALLER: I'm doing fine. I have a question, do they realize how much power they gave women? Anyone can hit the lotto or have a successful business and someone can come from the past and say, "Hey, he did this," just to make money, and nothing really happened.

DOC: Yeah. We've given women way too much power. I mean, that whole suffrage thing, that started the ball rolling, Bill. That was the whole -- no, I know what you mean. If you go back 30, 40 years or whatever, women and many people have a legitimate beef when they say women were never believed. You know, that they automatically didn't believe them. And that's the reason now they keep saying, every woman deserves to be heard. The problem is now the pendulum has swung completely the other way, where as long as you accuse somebody, you're believed, and it's believed to be true. And that's a bigger problem.

CALLER: Yep. That's all I had. You guys are doing a great job. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

DOC: Thanks, buddy. Appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving.

You understand what I'm saying there? It's a bigger problem to accuse people and have that accusation be believed with no proof, no rule of law, no justice system. Now, a lot of this stuff is just tried in the court of opinion.

But that's a bigger problem. The idea of --

KAL: The court of opinion matters almost as much.

DOC: Matters. Because we live on social media, Kal. Everything. You can't even have a restaurant without having it rated by four different apps.

KAL: Yep.

DOC: Everything is judged like that. And we share this information. The court of public opinion is now as valuable and important and powerful as it ever has been. Yes, I recognize, as Mitt Romney said, that, you know, innocent until proven guilty is for the justice system. The legal system.

But shouldn't it also apply in the court of public opinion?

Shouldn't it? So while women were not believed and they were victimized, some men were not believed and victimized over the years. And they said, oh, well, I'm not even going to entertain what you're saying about so-and-so touching you inappropriately, because I like that guy and just go away, and that was horrible. That person who was guilty of something got away with it. That's horrible. But worse, to convict somebody -- even the court of public opinion, when they're innocent, I would rather when we're dealing with the justice system, set free 100 guilty people than send one innocent person to jail. Maybe you disagree. I think that's a pretty good system. So that's the reason we discussed this.

Please, keep recognizing which claims are segregations which ones are proven. Half of Al Franken's are proven. She said he kissed her without permission. Forcibly, whatever. And then number two, he groped her. The groping is on film. That part is proven.

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.