|Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...|
GLENN: The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac story. I always screw those names up. I don't --
STU: I think they officially on this program should be known by the opposite names.
STU: So it's Freddie Mac --
GLENN: Now we're going to do it -- I don't remember.
STU: So you do Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae.
GLENN: Fannie and Freddie get together. Let me see if I can find the date here. On February 28th I said that $3.6 billion was the loss announced by Fannie Mae. That's the country's largest backer of home loans yesterday, but instead of outrage, our government responded as it always does with a bailout. Almost exactly at the same time that Fannie Mae was revealing their billions in losses and saying there's more on the horizon, our government was announcing that they wanted to lift the cap on how many loans Fannie Mae could fund. Let's take on even more risk at your expense, said Washington. You're on the hook for America and it's going to get much worse. That's February 28th. "Oh, Glenn, stop being such a pessimist. Look, everything's being..." here it is. These two mortgage institutions run -- I'm sorry, run by private industry but consulted by the federal government, hold 50% of the mortgages in this country, 50%. $11 trillion. By the way, federal deficit, $9 trillion. The federal government yesterday made it official. They are going to back all of these loans. "You can trust with the full faith and credit of the United States." I don't have much more faith and credit in the United States! Wait a minute. You're -- oh, you're backing it up with U.S. Treasury dollars? Oh, well, those are hard to come by unless you happen to be standing by the printing machine that's printing 24/7. My gosh! Oh, with the full faith and credit, you can trust that our dollar is worth a lot.
So our debt -- our deficit is $9 trillion. Last night unbeknownst to you -- you didn't have a say in this -- they decided that they would take on an additional $11 trillion of debt. "Ah, we'll just put that one in this drawer over here." Right thing? Too big to fail, they say. Too big to fail. That's weird. Didn't I hear that about the other one that they said that they were no longer going to bail anybody out? Well, Bear Stearns, yeah, that's right. Too big to fail.
Richard Branson came out over the weekend and said something that I've been telling you since the beginning of the year. The airlines are going to fail. They cannot survive with this price of oil. The airlines are going to fail. Guarantee, mark my words. The airline -- that airline is going out of business? That airline is too big to fail. Everything is too big to fail. We pat ourselves on the back every time because we've saved that one. Ooh, we dodged that bullet. And yet we make the problem bigger because we're not curing the patient. We're putting a Band-Aid on it. We make the problem bigger and yet we all feel better about it. Well, you don't because you're smart. I'm a recovering alcoholic, former deejay with no formal education, for the love of Pete! I can figure this out but Chuck Schumer can't figure it out? Boy, that guy's dumb as a box of rocks, huh?
So too big to fail? We'll bail them out. We'll take on more. We're being pushed not into socialism. You know when we play this, we say, "Comrade!" Actually we're doing the wrong thing because we are headed into a new style of government. It's the style of government that Russia is doing now. They knew that this (playing Russian National Anthem) would fail. What they needed was a semblance of democracy but not really a democracy. You can -- a semblance of free trade. But then these oil companies, they're too important for the economy. So Russia will take care of all of the oil and the gas. All of the industry that has been folded in under the umbrella of Putin. We're being pushed into the same model that China and Russia are doing currently because the elites in Washington know better than you, the little people.
Which brings me to the EPA. A story that came out on Friday, the EPA is now going to control carbon because the Supreme Court says they can. They can regulate carbon. Didn't we dodge the bullet of the cap and trade thing that was going on in Washington? Didn't the people speak out and say no? Yes, but the Supreme Court says, don't have to go through that whole congress thing. That can be regulated by the EPA. In something that is going to cost you a fortune, the EPA is going to start regulating carbon. Why? Why involve all the messy people? Let's just let those nine judges figure it out. The same people that read the Constitution and only five out of the nine said, yeah, it's in the Constitution that you can own a gun. We patted ourselves on the back and said, wow, look at that; our Supreme Court understands that it actually says that in the Constitution! Where it's spelled out. It's actually written. While we were patting ourselves on the back, we didn't realize that four of those judges can't find those words in the Constitution. It's that close, four can't find them. What would it have said if Sandra Day O'Connor was in? Who knows. Who knows.
All right. So what's happening here? We're not letting a bank fail because it's too big. It's too important. The EPA can regulate carbon. Why? Because the judges say so. How does this relate to somebody shaking the panties of a 13-year-old to find nonprescription medication in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? That one seems pretty obvious. Until you actually look at the case, who voted against the shaking of the panties? Who sided with? Because your initial gut says that's wrong, shouldn't happen, right? I don't want my 13-year-old strip searched. I'd be mad as hell. And that's what the parents were, and they took it to the court, sued them. The people that voted on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals -- remember my theory. If the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says it's one way, it must be the other. That's why I looked into this because I went, wait a minute here; I can't agree with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, there's got to be something else. There is. It was the conservatives that said no, if the school district thinks that they want to strip search for ibuprofen, it is the school district's decision to make. Why? Why? Because the conservatives on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals understood that the closer you leave the power to the people, the better off the people will be. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the dissenting opinion said if the people don't like it, they should remove their school board members. They should change the school board. But the liberals said this is too important, this is too big. We need to protect people. They have loaded powder into a keg, just poured more powder into a keg. That's what's -- all of these stories have one thing in common. More powder into a keg. You must let things, small explosions or small failures, happen. You must. What they've done in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is tempered your outrage. They have allowed these people to stay in power that made that decision and they've said to you, the Court is your protector. No, it is not. My voice is the protector. My vote is the protector. I am the protector, not the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not make the decision. I make the decision.
Now, let me ask you this: How is it the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says that the school district has the power, because they are closer to the problem -- listen to this one. How was it they said they're closer to the problem; leave the problem up to the people who are facing it every day; let those people decide what's going on because they know in their school district if they have some crisis of ibuprofen, they know; let them make the decision. And yet the Supreme Court said the military can't make the decision, the people who are closest to Guantanamo cannot make the decision. The people on the ground, the people who are, "No, no, no, the Court must make the decision." You can't have it both ways.
I ask you today, shouldn't we just give up on this whole presidential thing? Shouldn't we just give up on this whole Washington thing? It doesn't seem to be working. They only seem to be making it worse. And really aren't the people who are telling us how to live our lives just those nine people in Washington anyway? Why don't we just elect Supreme Court justices. Let them serve out for life. Why don't we just let -- it's a nice little system. They have it in Iran. Why don't we just allow these nine people to make all of our decisions and tell us what we can and cannot do in this country. Forget about the separation of power. Forget about three separate branches. Separate but equal, forget about all of that stuff.
As Thomas Jefferson said, if you allow the Supreme Court to tell any other branch exactly what they can do, then the Constitution is written in wax and it can be molded any way those people want to mold it.
So what is the picture that we're now looking at? What is it that they're molding us into? They're moving us into a direction where the people have less and less power, but what they forget is that we don't forget. We remember who has the power. We know who has the power, and they should stop putting gunpowder into the keg because it's only going to make things much, much worse.