Glenn Beck: Bush speaks on economic woes


Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

GLENN: I want to ask you a question. How many recessions have we gone through? How many recessions, how many troubled economic times has this country weathered? A ton, right? How many just in your lifetime? How many times have we gone through a recession? How many times have we weathered the storm? How many times have you heard the argument, "Well, it's this administration's failed policies," both the Republicans and the Democrats, over and over and over again, right? And, "Oh, stop, they're talking the economy down," blah, blah, blah. Okay, we've all lived it. Let me ask you this: How many times in your lifetime has the President of the United States given speeches at 7:30 or 7:45 or 8:30 or 8:35 in the morning directed directly to Wall Street? How many times in your lifetime have you heard the President of the United States say these words that he said today right before the markets opened?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yesterday the house of representatives voted on a financial rescue plan that had been negotiated by congressional leaders of both parties and my administration. Unfortunately the measure was defeated by a narrow margin. I'm disappointed by the outcome, but I assure our citizens and citizens around the world that this is not the end of the legislative process. Producing legislation is complicated and it can be contentious. It matters little what a path a bill takes to become law. What matters is that we get a law. We're at a critical moment for our economy, and we need legislation that decisively addresses the troubled assets now clogging the financial system, helps lenders resume the flow of credit to consumers and businesses, and allows the American economy to get moving again.

GLENN: Okay, stop for a second. Here's what he's saying. He's saying that the financial system is clogged, and I think there's most people -- and I would love to just take phone calls today from people who are just starting to wake up and go, wait a minute, wait a minute, what does this mean. Because we and everybody on the staff here has been so into this and I've been whipping the research horses now for about a year, a year and a half on this very scenario and so we don't even know anymore what most people don't know. We don't know what the average Joe question is anymore because I was, honestly I was walking with a guy yesterday and we were walking to a car and we were talking and just last week he said to me, said, "Glenn, I just came into some money from an inheritance." And he said, "I was thinking about putting this into stocks, what stocks do you think..." and I said, you've got to be kidding me, right? He said, what? I said, well, first of all, I'm not the guy to ask for investment advice and the second thing is, are you paying attention to what's going on? Now, this is not a guy that's associated with us at all. He said, I know there's some stuff going on but, you know, it's all over, right? I said, all over? It's just beginning. He said, really?



Saw him yesterday and he said, so the stock market was down 777 points. So now should I put my money in the stock market? I said, no, no, don't put your money in the stock market. It's extraordinarily volatile. And he said, well, some people say it's going to go back up tomorrow. I said, it will go up one day and go down the next day and up one day and down the next day. I said, you can't trust it yet. He said, I don't even know what all of this means. And I think that's where most people are. They don't even know what this means. And that's what the President is in between a rock and a hard place here. Some of it by his own doing. He can't really explain what all of this means. What he just said here is there are people that can't get loans.

Now, a lot of people will say, well, I can go get a loan, or, I've got good credit, I don't have to worry about that, I'm not doing -- let me tell you something. Let me tell you something. The credit that he's talking about is the kind of credit that businesses use and you as well. School loans, everything. You as well. What's happened is -- remember you don't want a run on the bank. Why? You don't want a run on the bank because then everybody takes their money and they hoard it and they put it underneath their mattress and there's no money left to be able to loan money. Remember It's a Wonderful Life: Your money's in this guy's house, your money's over here. So you don't want to hoard money. Well, there was a run on the bank. See, we have the trust of FDIC, so we don't run and get our money because we know that our money is going to be returned to us. Because the federal government will just print more money if they don't have it. They will just print it. So you get your money back. So we have that little seal on the door that makes us feel all happy.


Well, the banks don't have that. The banks know what's going on, and the banks don't trust each other. They don't know, "Wait a minute, are you good, are you bad? Are you going to survive, are you not?" They don't know what's going to happen next. They don't know if the Government's going to get involved, not get involved, seize them, do this, do that. Is the economy going to grow or expand or contract, are we having huge taxes coming, are we having huge spending still? What's going to happen with the hedge funds, what's going to happen with the price of oil? They have no idea. And so what they've done is they've gone to their bank, the treasury and the Fed and they have had a run on the bank and they have put that money under their proverbial mattress. So they are saying, no, no, no, I can't loan you any money. They have got all the money they need but they are holding onto it because they don't know, they may have to cover some assets, they don't know what's coming. So they just don't spend their money. Well, that's what happened in the Great Depression with regular people. That's what happened with Japan with regular people. They had money and they wouldn't spend it. And so what happens, everything stops.

Now if you're -- and you know this. If you're a farmer, you need to go and get a loan, "I need to get a loan, got to buy my fertilizer, got to buy my seeds, start all my wages, everything else." So you go get a loan until that crop is harvest and then you pay it back. Grocery stores have to do that, get the trucks, get it all out. Nobody has the money to just put out. They have these revolving lines of credit. Well, that revolving line of credit has stopped now. So there's no way to do business.

This is something that we talked to you about eight months ago and I said if this stops, if people can't get loans, business will stop. They say that we're probably around two weeks away from just business, I mean healthy businesses just not being able to do business because if -- and I don't have any information. I don't even want to use real names. You know, if Bill's Fabric Store has lots of fabric and they are trying to sell fabric to, you know, a name brand maker, well, that name brand maker can't buy it because they always take out a giant loan because they don't have money for, you know, the plaid skirts on hand. That's what they do. That business, even healthy ones, will go down because nobody can get the short-term loans.


That's what the President is talking about. This is why it affects you because businesses will begin to close. Healthy businesses will begin to close. You'll -- unless they operate on a full cash basis, they won't be able to do it. Unless they are self-sufficient and have zero debt, unless -- it doesn't matter how good your credit is. You ain't getting a loan. So unless your business has the money where they never have a revolving line of credit, they never have to go to the bank, they are not going to be able to survive. That's why he says really big things going on, but he never really explains that in this. That's why you have to go back and say, "Okay, wait a minute, what else did he say?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: I recognize this is a difficult vote for members of congress. Many of them don't like the fact that our economy has reached this point, and I understand that.

GLENN: Stop. He doesn't like -- many of them don't like that our economy has reached this point. Most Americans at this point go, you're damn right, and whose fault is it? Instead of saying "What point," the immediate thing from every American is, "You're damn right, and I'm one of them. I don't like, and you guys caused it." Instead of saying, "Well, what point exactly are we at, what exactly are we facing? What do you mean by they don't like the fact that we're at this point?"

PRESIDENT BUSH: But the reality is that we're in an urgent situation.

GLENN: Stop. We're in an urgent situation. Why are we in an urgent situation? What is an urgent situation? I've lived through recessions before. I don't remember ever hearing that they were so urged.

PRESIDENT BUSH: And the consequences will grow worse each day if we do not act.

GLENN: Stop. If the government doesn't give $750 billion as a bailout -- that is twice the size of prescription drugs, twice the size of prescription drugs -- if they don't implement this plan now, the problems grow worse by the day?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Dramatic drop in the stock market we saw yesterday will have a direct impact on the retirement accounts, pension funds and personal savings of millions of our citizens. And if our nation continues on this course, the economic damage will be painful and lasting.

GLENN: Stop. The economic damage will be painful and lasting. Why? Why is this different than any other, why is this different than any other recession? Okay, so you get the bad banks, the bad banks go out. Okay, big deal. We had the S&L, we had the 1987 S&L scandal. We lived through that. It wasn't painful and lasting. You know, we got through it. What's the big deal here?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I know many Americans are especially worried about the cost of the legislation. The bill the House considered yesterday commits up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase troubled assets from banks and other financial institutions. That, no question, is a large amount of money.

GLENN: Twice the size of prescription drugs.

PRESIDENT BUSH: This is a large problem.

GLENN: Stop. Twice the size of prescription drugs, and I know that's a lot of money. Do you remember what it took to get the prescription drug thing through? And I know that's a lot of money. Yeah, it's a ton of money. Even with a large problem, he says. Again most Americans blow that off because they've heard this before. We've heard this over and over again. You want to talk about the little boy that cried wolf, this is it. This is what the average American thinks. "Really?" You know what? This problem where the President says something like this and no one listens to him starts a long time ago. It starts really, I think the seed was during the Nixon administration, when you -- what? Are you kidding me? When everybody said in the 1990s, "Oh, it doesn't matter what he does in his personal life. It doesn't matter. So what. He was lying about sex." It does matter! You're right, it doesn't matter that it was about sex. It could have been about anything. It doesn't matter about the topic. It matters about the lie. You can't lie to people. You can't look at people in the eye and say, "Yeah, well, okay, I was lying about that one." Because now you don't trust. Now you've seen a guy put every ounce of credibility onto the table. So half the country was disenfranchised in the Nineties and said, wait a minute, it does matter. You can't lie. And then we had the 2000 election where they were clearly lying about the recount. And then they stole the next election and then we went into Iraq, and did they have yellow cake, did they not have yellow cake. Was he lying about that, was he not lying about that. No one believes our candidates anymore. No one believes our President anymore. No one believes our congress anymore. Nobody believes this problem is real because no one has any credibility.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?