Glenn Beck: 2 out of 3 ain't bad




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


GLENN: Well, let's take a look at what happened yesterday. I have heard some unbelievable spin on television and ‑‑

PAT: Like what?

GLENN: Hmmm?

PAT: Like what? That the Democrats were running uphill in New Jersey?

GLENN: No.

PAT: I mean, New Jersey, the most liberal, one of the most liberal Democrat states.

GLENN: No, forget about the liberal states.

PAT: An incumbent running uphill?

GLENN: And how much more did he spend?

PAT: Two to one.

STU: Yeah, if you've got double the money, you are a self, self‑finance, you can spend pretty much whatever you want.

PAT: Whatever you want.

STU: You are in a liberal state, you are a liberal guy.

PAT: Obama showed up in the last, what, week to support and still lost by five.

GLENN: May I just play word association game. New Jersey.

PAT: Corruption.

GLENN: New Jersey?

PAT: Corruption.

GLENN: New Jersey.

PAT: Corruption.

GLENN: It's corruption, unions, mob, ACORN. I mean, if you want to talk about a state where you can throw the election. I mean, I just, I kept thinking last night with New Jersey, please just don't let it be close enough for a recount because if it's a recount, I mean, it's over.

STU: The great, great stat out of the exit polls last night.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Of you've got, you want to know how bad the taxes are in New Jersey. You have a state that just fired 40 officials for corruption, and corruption was still behind property taxes.

GLENN: That's amazing.

PAT: Look, stop asking Jon Corzine to mop a certain way, all right? He's just picking up a mop and he's mopping.

GLENN: All he's doing.

PAT: It's not a corrupt mop, it's not a socialist mop.

GLENN: It's a mop.

PAT: It's standing on the sidelines and telling him how to mop.

STU: That one's surprising, though.

GLENN: New Jersey is surprising.

STU: I have to apologize, New Jersey. I called you out and I said you would not be able to do it. I would not have believed it. That's amazing.

GLENN: Well, so we have New Jersey. And again remember only outspent 2‑1 and had, what, 115,000 votes for an independent?

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: And still one. Then you have Virginia. Now look, you can hear all you want about, well, it's always, it goes the opposite way. Really? By 20 points? By 20 points?

PAT: A landslide. That was a mandate.

GLENN: Then you have New York 23, and I love the propaganda on this one. First of all, this just shows ‑‑ I mean, when you've lost Virginia by 20 points, Corzine loses in the most corrupt state in the union. No, my apologies to Massachusetts. You may actually be ‑‑

PAT: And Louisiana.

STU: And Illinois.

PAT: And Illinois.

GLENN: Isn't that weird where all these policies are coming from. It's weird. But anyway, when you lose that, when you've got the Democrats coming out and saying, yeah, but the congressional district 23. And here's their case: Well, you know, this just shows the failure of the tea party. Okay. Let's just go through this. Let's just go through this. If I heard that one more time last night, I was going to blow my head off. Here it is. This is the failure, okay? That a guy who is not electric ‑‑

PAT: A total unknown.

STU: An accountant.

PAT: Start with that.

GLENN: Could I make the case?

STU: You are making a good, so far ‑‑

PAT: You are making it wrong. So we're trying to help.

GLENN: He is not electric at all. He is ‑‑ I mean, God bless him.

STU: Admittedly.

GLENN: Yeah. I like him, but he is not, he's not flashy. He's an accountant eight weeks ago that nobody even knew, a complete unknown. He's a third party guy. The Republicans spent with what's her face, Scuzzia, they gave her, I believe it was $800,000? Is that right?

STU: It's about a million.

PAT: They had $4 million in the coffers.

GLENN: To destroy him. To destroy him. Then she drops out of the race and then she unites with the Democrats who are also spending money hand over fist to destroy the accountant! And you win by 3 points? That's a victory? You've double‑teamed an accountant and you only won by three points. Boy, you guys are good.

PAT: Yeah, what a failure that tea party was.

GLENN: That's like the Yankees playing a high school team and winning by three runs. Oh, wow!

STU: Yeah. And I think even Doug Hoffman would admit that he had no right to be against the political machine and be that close.

GLENN: Right. And here's what the ‑‑ forget about the Democrats. Here's what the Republicans should learn. The tea party movement, if you think you're going to run people that are going to be, you know, ACORN wannabes and they're just part of the corruption, part of the system, if you're going to run those people, you can expect a tea party guy to come out, and the tea parties, they'll help you lose every single election. Every single election. Because I for one am not ‑‑ if I believe in the Republican, I'll vote for the Republican. But if you're running somebody who's like part of the system, I'm not interested. I'm not interested. And I think that a lot of Americans are like that. So the Republicans have a choice to make. You can either spend a million dollars trying to destroy a third party accountant, or you could say, wow, this accountant probably would come in within three points of beating the Democrat if we combined our efforts, Republicans and Democrats, spent a fortune, had our candidate then drop out and campaign for the Democrats, we might be able to come in with about a 3‑point margin. You might want to just say, "Maybe we should go with the accountants. Maybe we should go with the regular people."

STU: It's so funny the way they spin the blame on this. The current thing was two close candidates and someone who got about 5%, the Republican in this case got 5%. So who ‑‑ and in a close race. So who's at fault? In this one, of course, it's still the conservative. If it was reverse and it was a Democrat and Republican that were close and the conservative third party only got 5% but it was this close, who else would be blamed? Of course the conservative would be blamed in that case, too.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It doesn't even matter. Just, it's the conservative fault.

GLENN: I don't hear anybody, I don't hear anybody talking about in the news, did you hear anybody talking about how Scuzzia goes and campaigns for the other party? That's outrageous. That is out, just absolutely outrageous.

STU: Yeah, it's one thing to zip your mouth and not get involved and I think, you know, that ‑‑

GLENN: Can you imagine if Hillary Clinton would have campaigned for John McCain?

STU: That's a great point. Can you even imagine?

GLENN: Can you even imagine what would be said? The press is like, "No big deal; she's a Republican. Of course she wants to..." stand up for what? The system, the two‑party system that is clearly now colluding with each other? Oh, wow. Yeah, that's going to hurt the tea party movement. I mean, jeez.

STU: And I love this, too. They are trying to make this out to be some dramatic thing: Look how bad this hurt the Republicans. Okay, so let me get this straight. We've sent them a great message about how you actually have to stand for something. And for the next year, not even two years, but one year the Democrats will have an 80‑seat advantage instead of a 79‑seat advantage? I think that's a price I'm willing to pay here.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: To send them a message of, hey, run some candidates that actually believe in something.

GLENN: This is setting the stage for ‑‑ it's going to dwarf 1994, dwarf it. Dwarf it. What's coming next year, dwarf.

STU: You mean a dwarf candidate? Are you saying that you believe ‑‑

GLENN: Yes, we're going to go for accountant ‑‑

STU: To be a mini candidate?

GLENN: Yeah, accountant mini me's. Yes.

STU: That's what you're predicting?

GLENN: No, I really think that this is going to make what happened in 1994 look small. Look, here's the message to me that was sent. Do you know how much money Mayor Bloomberg spent to become mayor?

PAT: $100 million.

GLENN: $100, come on, mini me, million dollars.

PAT: Million dollars.

STU: Million dollars.

GLENN: Unbelievable.

PAT: On a mayoral race.

GLENN: I couldn't tell you ‑‑ Sarah, what's the name of the guy that he was running against? Do you even know?

SARAH: Bill Thompson.

STU: She knows because I asked her to pull an ad this morning.

GLENN: Really?

STU: To make a point on this race.

GLENN: I thought it was Robinson. I had no idea. Okay? $100 million. New Yorkers generally ‑‑ I thought New Yorkers really liked him. I think the guy ‑‑ anybody who says, "You know what, we're going to make this, we're going to make this the safest city in the country, or in the world, and we're going to put as many cameras up that are in London, the most surveilled population on planet Earth because..." and if I may quote: We can't just have people walking around thinking they can just go anywhere they want. What?

STU: Who couldn't ‑‑ what's not to love?

GLENN: What's not to love about Mayor Bloomberg? He spends $100 million to become the mayor of New York City. I thought it was a giant waste of money because I just thought everybody just loved Michael Bloom ‑‑ it's New York. Of course they're like, yes, yes, surveillance is good and we shouldn't have any guns, either, and the government is great.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: He won by, what, 4 points?

PAT: Five, five points.

GLENN: Five points.

PAT: Five points after a $100 million campaign.

GLENN: I can't even name the other guy.

STU: Yeah. The only reason I knew who the other guy was was because Bloomberg mentioned him so much in his ads.

PAT: Because he mentioned him. That's the only reason.

GLENN: That is the only reason why I know him because there was something about, same old policies, big tax. That's the only reason why I know that guy.

PAT: I've been here for three months. I have never once seen a Bill Thompson commercial on New York television. Not one.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I have seen thousands of Michael Bloomberg commercials.

GLENN: Oh, they were running ‑‑

PAT: Thousands.

GLENN: In New York they were running like two ads per breaks.

STU: Two per break.

PAT: Per break.

STU: In the exit polls it showed that he had about a 70% approval rating. So it wasn't that they necessarily didn't like Bloomberg but they said ‑‑

GLENN: But listen. Go ahead. What did they say?

STU: They said ‑‑ one of the main things that they said they didn't like was this guy changing laws so that he could rerun.

GLENN: Exactly, right.

STU: The power.

GLENN: Listen to that. Listen to that.

PAT: Which he fought with Giuliani.

GLENN: He fought with Giuliani. Giuliani after 9/11 said let me ‑‑ I can stay just a little longer.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Just a few more months. Absolutely not. Nobody is that special that they have to stay in office. This is an American principle; the law is clear. What does he do? He gets the city council to change the law so he can run for a third term.

PAT: Which he does.

STU: That's amazing.

GLENN: And he wins. This is exactly what Americans are sick of. And somebody in New York, a mayoral candidate that isn't bad. Look, New York, I mean, look, New York always sucks. But it doesn't ‑‑ I mean, it's ‑‑ okay, people ‑‑ it is hard to get across the bridges and through the tunnels because of all the moving vans from anybody who has any money whatsoever. They're fleeing this city like crazy. Okay, and he did, because he couldn't get his little green thingy, threw a temper tantrum and he decided to relieve New York traffic by making Broadway into a park, which, I don't know anyone that can explain how that eased traffic. But he's not a horrible mayor. He's not a horrible mayor and yet he spends $100 million and only wins by five points. You better look out. Incumbents, you better look ‑‑ you better have the Obama war chest because an accountant with no name or a guy who nobody even knows. Who is this guy that's running against Bloomberg? You might as well say "That guy" or just put on the other line "The other guy for mayor." I mean, it was that shocking to me.

Glenn created "The Senate Fails to Condemn INFANTICIDE" in response to the Senate not passing Nebraska Senator Ben Sasses' bill banning infanticide early this year. In an effort to help support pro-life charities, Glenn first posted this for sale on eBay before being banned multiple times before we finally had enough and put it up for sale on bidpal.net.

At the time of this post, the bid was up to $4,700 — but we can do better than that. Please help us raise money for a good cause, you don't even have to display it anywhere in your home, you can just keep it in storage or something! If you want this priceless piece created by one of the most influential people in the world of art, place your bids here.

Can you remember the economic crisis of 2008 and how you felt when the news broke that Lehman Brothers had collapsed? I have found an economic threat that everyone needs to be aware of, so you can prepare yourself in case we see another 2008 type collapse. I am going to present the evidence to you and I urge you to verify everything and to form your own opinion.

What is that threat?

It is a bank called Deutsche Bank. They are by far the most dominant bank in Germany which is the world's fourth-largest economy. In 2018 they had €2.08 Trillion worth of assets and the second-placed bank (DZ Bank) had €506 Billion worth of assets. To show you how dominant this bank is, they have more assets than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sized banks combined.
When we review a business there are three key parts to analysis:

  • Market sentiment
  • Business numbers
  • Technical Analysis

Market Sentiment

Deutsche Bank has a long history of potential scandals including going all the way back to World War 2 and dealing in Nazi gold. Below are five recent stories which have increased the negative sentiment around Deutsche Bank.

  1. In 2007, they purchased a portfolio of loans worth $7.8 billion and purchased insurance from Warren Buffets Company. It was discovered they did not set aside enough capital to cover any potential losses. Over the course of the ten years, they lost $1.6 billion, and when they sold the loan they did not update their financial statements to include the big loss
  2. The Panama Papers are an ongoing investigation looking for many things including offshore tax havens. These investigations have resulted in several heads of state resigning including in Iceland and Pakistan. Last November, 170 police raided 6 different offices in Frankfurt looking for evidence of money laundering.
  3. Estonia is a small country in Eastern Europe. It has a population of 1.3 million people and a GDP of €26 billion. In January, it was discovered Deutsche Bank got involved with a Danish bank called Danke Bank and processed over $230 billion worth of cross country payments (including from Soviet Russia) through one bank in Estonia.
  4. There have been rumors of issues with Deutsche for a while now and one of the solutions put forth was a merger with a bank called CommerzBank. The leaders of both companies met and they even got support from politicians. In April, news broke that the merger talks had failed because over worries the risks and costs would be too great.
  5. Last week in France, Investment banking boss Garth Ritchie and others were arrested in France over illicit tax transactions.

Business Numbers

Deutsche Bank is already struggling as they are losing staff, losing market share, and bonuses are expected to be down at least 10% and further rounds of cost-cutting to come. Now imagine the impact if business costs start going up.

The banking industry works in a very simple way. They raise funds through large bonds at low-interest rates and then sell those funds to business and individuals thru products like loans and credit cards at a higher interest rate which results in a potential profit.

Earlier this year, Deutsche Bank tried raising money through several bonds. They paid 180bp (basis points) on a two-year bond and 230bp on a seven-year bond. Let me put this in context for you. There is a small bank in Spain called Caixabank which paid 225bp on a five-year bond and one of the larger banks in Spain, BBVA paid 130bp on a five-year bond.

  • How and why is a small bank in Spain getting a better deal on bonds than a huge bank in Germany?
  • Why is a large bank in Spain getting a bond 100bp cheaper than a German bank?
  • What does the market know that we do not?

Stock Price

Deutsche is also missing revenue projections which further hurt the business ability to survive and prosper. As you can imagine all of this news has a deep and lasting impact on its stock price which is in deep trouble. Before I share the stock price, I need to put this into the context of the market and the industry compared to the big economic crash of 2008. Below you will see a chart of some banking stocks from around the world with their peak price prior to the 2008 crash, the low of the 2008 recession and the price today:

As you can see from the above chart the banks in America have recovered from the 2008 recession by anywhere up 375% and JP Morgan has not only recovered its price in full but is constantly setting new high's. Ireland went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the EU/IMF following the 2008 crash and even our national bank has more than doubled its price since 2008. The worst performing bank I could find was Societe Generale which has issues but is still hovering around its 2008 low price levels.

Now let's put that into the context of Deutsche Bank. Not only has the stock not rebounded but it is over 65% below its 2008 low at $6.75.

Technical Analysis

When you are dealing with the stock market, you also have people who study pricing through technical analysis. Experts look at things like FIB sequences, trend lines, and support levels. Support levels are a key metric for a stock failing because are looking to find where it will find support and potentially bounce higher.

We are very close to a key support level ($6.40) and if the price goes below this level, there is no saying exactly how low the price could go. At least one company expects Deutsche to fall below this support level, as several weeks ago UBS downgraded the stock to a sell order. This news was compounded last Friday when rating agency Fitch, downgraded their credit rating to BBB or two levels above JUNK status.

Other Information

I know you are likely reading this and thinking "this bank must have smart people in charge and surely they have a plan, right?" I am sure there is a plan and while they have kept their cards close to their chest, they have spoken in the past about the areas they foresee having growth for the company – they include business in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Do they strike you as countries which are stable and will offer steady and reliable growth? Do you have to think really hard to imagine how this could go potentially very wrong?

Questions

I believe there is at least a solid case Deutsche is in a LOT of trouble. So what are possible scenarios for the future? I will lay out the key questions below but I must stress that it's impossible to say for sure what exactly will happen. One of the key numbers to remember here is they have roughly €50 billion worth of derivatives.

  • How likely is it that the bank can turn things around and survive?
  • How likely is it the bank continues to run into trouble, its stock price fails and eventually fails?
  • If you think it is likely it will fail, the question becomes what will the fallout be? Who will be affected?
  • Will they be bailed out?
  • If so, by whom? The German government, ECB, IMF, the Federal Reserve?
  • What will the German government think? Some members recently spoke out saying they would block public money for the proposed merger? Will they block funds if it failed?
  • Will other banks be exposed and affected? Will they have to take losses?
  • Will those losses be spread around or will one or more bank be mainly affect?
  • Will this affect the sentiment of the banking sector and cause a panic?
  • If there are issues and it starts affecting the stock prices, what will be the impact on other industries?

Last Question

The last question revolves solely around the banks and the regulators? How secure are the other banks? We all hear about how banks are now put through "stress tests" but how much trust do you put in those results? How much trust do you have in the regulators?

I know this may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist to some but it's an honest question. The Fed is on public record saying they want to keep this economy strong as long as possible. If a bank did not perform strongly in a stress test or even barely failed one, do you think they would report it?

Can you imagine the pressure that body would come under to stay silent? Can you imagine the rhetoric they would face with questions like, "Are you really going to fail one bank? Do you know how many people will lose their jobs if you do that?" Am I saying this is happening? No, but can you really rule it out 100% as a possibility?

I urge you to ponder on these questions, do your own research and find YOUR answers.

Update: The most freaquently asked question I have received from this column / show is how much time do we have to prepare. This is an impossible question to answer, as it could fail tomorrow, next week or might be next year. However I want to provide you a potential date for your diary – July 24th. That is when Deutsche will release their next earnings report and if it comes in below expectations, it could cause a further drop in price casting more doubt over the future viability of the bank.

Please support Jonathon's weekly podcast which is exclusive to the Blaze Media and available for FREE. He offers a unique perspective by promoting America's Founding Principles and brings every issue back to a set of core principles which are always based around the laws of nature. You can find links to his show by clicking here or by searching for Freedoms Disciple on your favorite audio platform.

Survey: Where do you stand on these conspiracy theories?

Thought Catalog / Unsplash

Have you seen this survey on the most-believed conspiracy theories in America?

It's no surprise the survey has been getting so much attention. The results are actually a pretty disturbing.

Infographic: Belief in Conspiracy Theories in the United States | Statista

I decided to put together a quick survey of my own, with slightly different wording.

Up-vote the ones you agree with and down-vote the ones you disagree with.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. However, I would not be surprised to find out the government sealed evidence that others were involved.

If by "deep state" you mean long-time Washington power brokers who are used to calling the shots and now feel threatened by Donald Trump not listening to their advice or council — yes, I do believe that many people like that are working against him and his administration.

Whether alien bodies are in Area 51 or not, I do believe the government knows more about UFOs than they have told us.

I do not believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, but as we know, NSA advisor Sandy Berger was caught destroying documents from the national archives related to both Bush and Clinton. All U.S. administrations have been to close to the Saudis, and the Saudis were involved in 9/11 at some level.

I believe the climate is always changing — it's natural. I would be willing to accept that man MAY play a role in this. But I do not believe in the solutions currently being discussed, nor do I believe the intention of most political activists are pure.

Any talk of the Illuminati provides the true dangers to man's freedom — like very powerful NGOS and men like George Soros — a perfect cover.

The U.S. government has done some horrible experiments on people and land — I also suspect they will do more things in the future. But I do not believe in the systematic spraying of chemicals using chemtrails.

The moon landing was real, but I see a time coming when people will not be able to trust their eyes due to deep fakes.

What do you think?

Let me know in the comments section below.