Glenn Beck: Fannie & Freddie mess


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.

GLENN: Okay.

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.

On Wednesday's TV show, Glenn Beck sat down with radio show host, author, political commentator, and film critic, Michael Medved.

Michael had an interesting prediction for the 2020 election outcome: a brokered convention by the DNC will usher in former First Lady Michelle Obama to run against President Donald Trump.

Watch the video below to hear why he's making this surprising forecast:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

On Thursday's "Glenn Beck Radio Program," BlazeTV's White House correspondent Jon Miller described the current situation in Virginia after Gov. Ralph Northam (D) declared a state of emergency and banned people carrying guns at Capitol Square just days before a pro-Second-Amendment rally scheduled on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Jon told Glenn that Gov. Northam and the Virginia Legislature are "trying to deprive the people of their Second Amendment rights" but the citizens of Virginia are "rising up" to defend their constitutional rights.

"I do think this is the flashpoint," Jon said. "They [Virginia lawmakers] are saying, 'You cannot exercise your rights ... and instead of trying to de-escalate the situation, we are putting pressure. We're trying to escalate it and we're trying to enrage the citizenry even more'."

Glenn noted how Gov. Northam initially blamed the threat of violence from Antifa for his decision to ban weapons but quickly changed his narrative to blame "white supremacists" to vilify the people who are standing up for the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

"What he's doing is, he's making all all the law-abiding citizens of Virginia into white supremacists," Glenn said.

"Sadly, that's exactly right," Jon replied. "And I think he knows exactly what he's doing."

Watch the video to catch more of the conversation below:

Use code BECK to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Ryan: Trump Louisiana Finale

Photo by Jim Dale

Part One. Part Two. Part Three.

At the end of Trump rallies, I would throw on my Carhartt jacket, sneak out of the press area, then blend in with everyone as they left, filing out through swinging doors.

Often, someone held the door open for me. Just 30 minutes earlier, the same person had most likely had most likely hissed at me for being a journalist. And now they were Sunday smiles and "Oh, yes, thank you, sir" like some redneck concierge.

People flooded out of the arena with the stupidity of a fire drill mishap, desperate to survive.

The air smacked you as soon as you crossed the threshold, back into Louisiana. And the lawn was a wasteland of camping chairs and coolers and shopping bags and to-go containers and soda cans and articles of clothing and even a few tents.

In Monroe, in the dark, the Trump supporters bobbled over mounds of waste like elephants trying to tiptoe. And the trash was as neutral to them as concrete or grass. They plodded over it because it, an object, had somehow gotten in their way.

It did not matter that they were responsible for this wreckage.Out in the sharp-edged moonlight, rally-goers hooted and yapped and boogied and danced, and the bbq food truck was all smoke and paper plates.

They were even more pumped than they had been before the rally, like 6,000 eight year olds who'd been chugging Mountain Dew for hours. Which made Donald Trump the father, the trooper, God of the Underworld, Mr. Elite, Sheriff on high horse, the AR-15 sticker of the family.

Ritualistic mayhem, all at once. And, there in Louisiana, Trump's supporters had gotten a taste of it. They were all so happy. It bordered on rage.

Still, I could not imagine their view of America. Worse, after a day of strange hostilities, I did not care.

My highest priority, my job as a reporter, was to care. To understand them and the world that they inhabit. But I did not give a damn and I never wanted to come back.

Worst of all, I would be back. In less than a week.

Was this how dogs felt on the 4th of July? Hunched in a corner while everyone else gets drunk and launches wailing light into the sky? configurations of blue and red and white.

It was 10:00 p.m. and we'd been traveling since 11:00 a.m., and we still had 5 hours to go and all I wanted was a home, my home, any home, just not here, in the cold sweat of this nowhere. Grey-mangled sky. No evidence of planes or satellites or any proof of modern-day. Just century-old bridges that trains shuffled over one clack at a time.

And casinos, all spangles and neon like the 1960s in Las Vegas. Kitchy and dumb, too tacky for lighthearted gambling. And only in the nicer cities, like Shreveport, which is not nice at all.

And swamp. Black water that rarely shimmered. Inhabited by gadflies and leeches and not one single fish that was pretty.

Full of alligators, and other killing types. The storks gnawing on frogs, the vultures never hungry. The coyotes with nobody to stop them and so much land to themselves. The roaches in the wild, like tiny wildebeests.

Then, the occasional deer carcass on the side of the road, eyes splayed as if distracted, tongue out, relaxed but empty. The diseased willows like skeletons in hairnets. The owls that never quit staring. A million facets of wilderness that would outlive us all.

Because Nature has poise. It thrives and is original.

Because silence is impossible. Even in an anechoic chamber, perfectly soundproofed, you can hear your own heartbeat, steady as a drum. A never-ending war.

I put "Headache" by Grouper on repeat as we glided west. We were deadlocked to asphalt, rubber over tarface.

And I thought about lines from a Rita Dove poem titled "I have been a stranger in a strange land"

He was off cataloging the universe, probably,
pretending he could organize
what was clearly someone else's chaos.

Wasn't that exactly what I was doing? Looking for an impossible answer, examining every single accident, eager for meaning? telling myself, "If it happens and matters the next year, in America, I want to be there, or to know what it means. I owe it to whoever cares to listen."

Humans are collectors and I had gone overboard.

Because maybe this wasn't even my home. These landmarks, what did they mean? Was I obvious here? When I smiled, did I trick them into believing that I felt some vague sense of approval? Or did my expressions betray me?

Out in all that garbage-streaked emptiness — despite the occasional burst of passing halogen — I couldn't tell if everything we encountered was haunted or just old, derelict, broken, useless. One never-ending landfill.

Around those parts, they'd made everything into junk. Homes. Roads. Glass. Nature. Life itself, they made into junk.

I cringed as we passed yet another deer carcass mounded on the side of the road.

As written in Job 35:11,

Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds in the sky?

Nobody. Look at nature and you feel something powerful. Look at an animal, in all of its untamable majesty, and you capture a deep love, all swept up in the power of creation. But, here, all I saw were poor creatures who people had slammed into and kept driving. Driving to where? For what reason? What exactly was so important that they left a trail of dead animals behind them?

So I crossed myself dolorously and said an "Our Father" and recited a stanza from Charles Bukowski's "The Laughing Heart"

you can't beat death but
you can beat death in life, sometimes.
and the more often you learn to do it,
the more light there will be.

Out here, nothing but darkness. Needing some light, by God. Give me something better than a Moon that hides like an underfed coward.

Jade told me about some of the more traumatic things she'd seen while working at the State Fair.

"Bro, they pull roaches out of the iced lemonade jugs and act like nothing happened."

"All right but what about the corn dogs?"

"You do not want to know, little bro."

She looked around in the quiet. "Back in the day, the Louisiana Congress refused to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21," she said. "They didn't want to lose all that drunk gambler money. So the federal government cut off funding to highways."

We glided through moon-pale landscape for an hour before I realized what she had meant. That there weren't any light poles or billboards along the road. Nothing to guide us or distract us. Just us, alone. And it felt like outer space had collapsed, swallowed us like jellybeans.

Like two teenagers playing a prank on the universe.

In the cozy Subaru Crosstrek, in the old wild night, brimming with the uncertainty of life and the nonchalance of failure, we paraded ourselves back to Dallas. Alive in the river silence that follows us everywhere.

New installments come Mondays and Thursdays. Next, the Iowa caucuses. Check out my Twitter. Email me at kryan@blazemedia.com

The Iowa primary is just around the corner, and concerns of election interference from the last presidential election still loom. Back in 2016, The Associated Press found that a majority of U.S. elections systems still use Windows 7 as an operating system, making them highly susceptible to bugs and errors. And last year, a Mississippi voter tried multiple times to vote for the candidate of his choice, but the system continuously switched his vote to the other candidate. It's pretty clear: America's voting systems desperately need an update.

That's where blockchain voting comes in.

Blockchain voting is a record-keeping system that's 100% verifiable and nearly impossible to hack. Blockchain, the newest innovation in cybersecurity, is set to grow into a $20 billion industry by 2025. Its genius is in its decentralized nature, distributing information throughout a network of computers, requiring would-be hackers to infiltrate a much larger system. Infiltrating multiple access points spread across many computers requires a significant amount of computing power, which often costs more than hackers expect to get in return.

Blockchain voting wouldn't allow for many weak spots. For instance, Voatz, arguably the leading mobile voting platform, requires a person to take a picture of their government-issued ID and a picture of themselves before voting (a feature, of course, not present in vote-by-mail, where the only form of identity verification is a handwritten signature, which is easily forgeable). Voters select their choices and hit submit. They then receive an immediate receipt of their choices via email, another security feature not present in vote-by-mail, or even in-person voting. And because the system operates on blockchain technology, it's nearly impossible to tamper with.

Votes are then tabulated, and the election results are published, providing a paper trail, which is a top priority for elections security experts.

The benefits of blockchain voting can't be dismissed. Folks can cast their vote from the comfort of their homes, offices, etc., vastly increasing the number of people who can participate in the electoral process. Two to three-hour lines at polling places, which often deter voters, would become significantly diminished.

Even outside of the voting increase, the upsides are manifold. Thanks to the photo identification requirements, voter fraud—whether real or merely suspected—would be eliminated. The environment would win, too, since we'd no longer be wasting paper on mail-in ballots. Moreover, the financial burden on election offices would be alleviated, because there's decreased staff time spent on the election, saving the taxpayer money.

From Oregon to West Virginia, elections offices have already implemented blockchain voting, and the results have been highly positive. For example, the city of Denver utilized mobile voting for overseas voters in their 2019 municipal elections. The system was secure and free of technical errors, and participants reported that it was very user-friendly. Utah County used the same system for their 2019 primary and general elections. An independent audit revealed that every vote that was cast on the app was counted and counted correctly. These successful test cases are laying the groundwork for even larger expansions of the program in 2020.

With this vital switch, our elections become significantly more secure, accurate, and efficient. But right now, our election infrastructure is a sitting duck for manipulation. Our current lack of election integrity undermines the results of both local and national elections, fans the flames of partisanship, and zaps voter confidence in the democratic system. While there's never a silver bullet or quick fix to those kinds of things, blockchain voting would push us much closer to a solution than anything else.

Chris Harelson is the Executive Director at Prosperity Council and a Young Voices contributor.