Glenn Beck: Why Goldman Is Willing to Take the Heat




Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Faith, hope and charity: We used to seek God's blessings on the country, we used to pursue maximum freedom to solve problems and we'd rely on one another in times of need.

Now we're being pushed towards what progressives have always found hope in: Dependency on regulations and administrations. Average Americans find that approach to be red tape. Our Founding Fathers found it to be slavery.

So it kind shocks me when there's no outcry to news stories like this one reported in the Financial Times over the weekend: The "U.S. is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to push for a tough new international capital regime."

Excuse me?

We're talking about the foundation of international financial regulations and global governing. It's a trial balloon being floated out there and I guess it was a success because the response was complete and total silence.

Is it just me who thinks this is a bad idea? Am I alone? I guess so, because even Republicans are OK with this one. How could that happen? Easy: It's those evil, greedy Sith lord Wall Street executives! Like the ones at Goldman Sachs, who are appearing before the almighty Senate Tuesday to get grilled by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (sounds scary) about their so-called attempts to manipulate and profit off the crash of the housing market.

They'll get chewed out and made an example of by people like Chris Dodd, who joined in the chorus of Goldman haters on "Meet the Press" on Sunday:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

SEN. CHRIS DODD, D-CONN.: Here we are, 17 months after someone broke into our house in effect and robbed us... and we still haven't changed the locks on the doors.

LARRY SUMMERS, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: These off-balance sheet, nontransparent vehicles with what people call implicit guarantees, invite these kinds of problems.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY, R-ALA.: We have to end once and for all the casino atmosphere on Wall Street, where they're gambling, basically, on synthetic ideas and so forth — with somebody else's money.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

You're right, Chris: You have to change those locks. But the other thing to make sure of is that the people you are calling to change the locks aren't the same ones who were involved with the robbery in the first place.

Yes, Dodd and his buddies will chew out Goldman, but if they are the root of all evil, why do these people all still work in the administration?

William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; was a partner and managing director at Goldman

Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; spent 18 years at Goldman

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Tim Geithner; former Goldman lobbyist

Philip Murphy; nominated for ambassador to Germany; former Goldman executive

Diana Farrell; deputy director of the National Economic Council; formerly with Goldman

Emil Michael; White House fellow; former investment banker with Goldman

There's just a few. And if Goldman really are the bad guys, we have bigger problems than just regulation, because we have to talk about global warming as well.

I got a tip from a watchdog — and by the way, if you are new to the program and don't know what a watchdog is, that's you. We've got millions of watchdogs e-mailing in tips and stories big and small and we welcome every single one of them. We get to as many as we can and even report on some of them, like this one about the Chicago Climate Exchange.

In case you didn't know the Chicago Climate Exchange existed — it does and it started trading in 2003. It's billed as: "North America's only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide." Members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to "meet annual Green House Gas emission reduction targets."

What's cap-and-trade? A scheme designed to transfer wealth from the companies that have to the companies that have not through the regulation of invisible gases. Remember, it was ENRON who lobbied heavily for this type of system, because they knew how to swindle a profit out of it.

Environmentalists like Obama want this system because it will make prices skyrocket and people will be forced to use less energy. But I don't want to put words in his mouth, I'll let him say it:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Got it? So the main beneficiaries will be big corporations and proponents of the redistribution of wealth. You are the loser here because you pay more for energy. But you can feel good because you saved the planet.

Uh-huh.

Not to mention, other places — like Europe — who have tried to implement green initiatives (like Spain) and then base markets on it are suffering the consequences. Because, as Time unwittingly described the creation of Chicago Climate Exchange, it "creates something out of nothing." There is no value behind the market; it's like Pets.com except now its solar panels.

So who would want to create something like this?

In 2000 and 2001, Chicago Climate Exchange received start-up grants from the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is like the George Soros' TIDES Foundation. In fact, it's actually bigger than TIDES and even funds TIDES. Think of it as a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link.

The Joyce Foundation supports such luminaries as John Ayers (William Ayers' brother).

There was one influential member on the board of the Joyce Foundation at the time the Chicago Climate Exchange got its seed money; someone instrumental in steering the funds towards the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange. They were on the board from 1994-2002. The founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Richard Sandor, said that he "knew (this person) well," which is perhaps how the money was awarded to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor. I'll get back to that person in a minute.

Sandor saw big things in a climate exchange market. How big?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLOOMBERG REPORTER: So how big do you think this market could be?

RICHARD SANDOR, CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE: I think it's a $10 trillion a year market.

REPORTER: Say that again?

SANDOR: $10 trillion a year.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

A $10 trillion a year market? That's a lot to go around. In comparison, the value of U.S. company shares on major U.S. and foreign stock exchanges equities market was $15 trillion in 2009. There's a lot of money riding on this climate legislation. But remember: It's all about saving the Earth.

London-based Generation Investment Management sees the earning potential as well. That's why they purchased a stake in Chicago Climate Exchange and are the fifth largest shareholder. The cofounder of the London-based firm? Former Vice President Al Gore. I say cofounder because some of the other founders include David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman).

In 2006, the Chicago Climate Exchange got a nice boost of confidence when an investor stepped to the plate and ponied up to purchase 10 percent of the combined company. Cofounder of the Chicago Exchange said the investment was big and welcome news. The investor? Goldman Sachs.

Oh and I almost forgot: The person at the beginning of it all? The one on the board of the Joyce Foundation that secured the initial funding for this project? Barack Obama.

This is so weird. It's almost like those our government says are responsible for the financial collapse are the ones directly involved in the "solutions." So much for "changing the locks," Chris.

OK, now let's look at this. What you have is a structure. This is the building: the Exchange. You've got the structure, all the players.

So what are we missing? Well, we're missing the bill and the technology to make it happen; the machinery to make it happen.

You are trading air; it's hard to keep track of air. The good news is, the bill is being worked on by Republicans and Democrats. That's cap-and-trade.

The machinery, the device? A patent for such a device was worked on by CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Shortly after he filed for the patent on his system to trade residential carbon credits, he was killed in the 9/11 attacks. Bartels wife then shopped the idea around and was able to find a buyer. The buyer ended up being a guy who wasn't really a good guy, he committed massive accounting fraud and manipulated earnings in his company in order to make huge bonuses.

That person was Franklin Raines, who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. The patent was eventually approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 — coincidentally the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Thanks to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner for pointing this out to us.

So now, Fannie Mae, who is congressionally mandated to "make housing more affordable," is poised to reap billions on a system that has nothing to do with housing except for that it would make housing costs go up.

That's great.

Remember when Fannie purchased risky mortgages from banks, bundled them together and sold to investors as mortgage-backed securities? And then the housing market was absolutely destroyed? Well, former Fannie VP Scott Lesmes was responsible for that bundling.

Well, here's the good news: Not only will this new carbon trading "system" try the exact same bundling method (except with air); they are using the exact same guy: Scott Lesmes.

But, please, don't worry. The only ones involved in this are the corrupt Franklin Raines, Mr. redistribution of wealth Barack Obama, and all the people who the House and Senate are currently saying are the bad guys. Other than that, this should work out great.

It's almost like Goldman is willing to take a little heat now, in order to get a little piece of the $10 trillion green pie later. I challenge the media: Will anyone pick this story up? Will anyone question this and the timing of it all?

All of a sudden illegal immigration has leap-frogged global warming? Is it because Goldman has to take hits to get the global government structure done? And then they get the payoff? Or will you continue to say oh, he's crazy and not talk about the facts.

— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Avenatti arrested: The lawyer now needs a lawyer

David McNew/Getty Images

At this point, I think there are about - oh - four thousand potential Democrats that may try and run for president in 2020. But we can probably take one off the list. "The creepy porn lawyer", also known by some as Michael Avenatti, was arrested yesterday afternoon in Los Angeles. And the reason why he was arrested kind of makes you think there's some kind of invisible force out there that's making sure either irony or maybe even karma is receiving it's daily offering. Michael Avenatti was just arrested for… Domestic Violence.

The alleged victim filed the complaint on Wednesday, but the incidents began on Tuesday. The woman involved is said to have bruising and swelling on her face and was kicked out of Avenatti's Los Angeles area apartment. Avenatti could be heard screaming, "This is BS, this is effing BS! She hit me first!"

RELATED: THIS spotlight hound masquerading as an attorney just got laughed out of court

Yeah, I don't think the whole "she hit me first" line is going to be a good strategy to use in court. He might want to revise that… I'm just saying.

You know, I wonder if the media - specifically CNN and MSNBC - are going to be doing any mea culpa's over the next 12 to 24 hours? They basically became Avenatti's PR wing over the past 8 months. From March to May, the two networks had Avenatti on the air over 100 times. He gave 147 interviews on both cable and network TV. MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell actually said quote, "Michael Avenatti is becoming my co-host. I've got to say."

And this was actually before he dragged Julie Swetnick into the limelight to attack Kavanaugh. You know I wonder, will this teach networks like CNN and MSNBC to maybe take a step back on over hyping and exposing every crazy, and even salacious, person or claim that comes out simply because it may be anti-Trump or GOP? Could this be a learning moment? Yeah… probably not, but one can dream.

And speaking of Kavanaugh, I've got to read this twitter exchange between one user and Avenatti on October 5th that said:

Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and it's Michael Avenatti's fault. Seriously.

And then Avenatti replied:

You are right. I should have turned my back on my client. Told her to "shut up" and stay quiet because people like you apparently believe assault victims are to blame. This line of thinking is disgusting and offensive to all survivors.

Well that was then and this is today. Here is Avenatti's statement last night.


Michael Avenatti: 'I Have Never Struck A Woman' | NBC News youtu.be

Umm, in the court of Avenatti, #metoo and public opinion now a days - by the standard that he helped create - is this statement not "disgusting and offensive to all survivors" as he tweeted back in October? Is he not immediately guilty as accused? I wonder if all the men and women screaming at Kavanaugh and GOP Senators in elevators can now see the pandora's box that they wanted opened.

The answer is no… he's NOT guilty as accused. Avenatti is innocent of this crime… UNTIL he's found guilty. We have to presume he's innocent until all evidence comes out proving he's not. That's how this works. Let's lead by example and do something radical here… let's actually wait for all the information and evidence to come out before we convict someone of a crime.

And that right there is the real irony here. Avenatti will get the due process that he deserves, but I doubt neither he - nor anyone screaming for Kavanaugh's head - will realize what happened.

It's been a busy week for former First Ladies, and for current First Lady Melania Trump. It has also been busy for one woman who, twenty-odd years ago, while working at the White House for then-President at the age of 21, shot to fame in the most embarrassing way possible.

Monica Lewinsky has released "The Clinton Affair," a docuseries that premieres this weekend on A&E;, a six-part series examining those cringe-inducing days and months surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton.

RELATED: The #MeToo movement proves to be too strong for the Clinton apologists

In an article for Vanity Fair early this year, she wrote:

Some closest to me asked why would I want to revisit the most painful and traumatic parts of my life — again. Publicly. On-camera. With no control of how it would be used. A bit of a head-scratcher, as my brother is fond of saying. Do I wish I could erase my years in D.C. from memory, 'Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind' style? Well, is the sky blue? But I can't. And in order to move forward in the life I have, I must take risks — both professional and emotional…. An important part of moving forward is excavating, often painfully, what has gone before. When politicians are asked uncomfortable questions, they often duck and dodge by saying, 'That's old news. It's from the past.' Yes. That's exactly where we need to start to heal — with the past. But it's not easy.

She added:

Filming the documentary forced me to acknowledge to myself past behavior that I still regret and feel ashamed of," she explained. "There were many, many moments when I questioned not just the decision to participate, but my sanity itself. Despite all the ways I tried to protect my mental health, it was still challenging. During one therapy session, I told my therapist I was feeling especially depressed. She suggested that sometimes what we experience as depression is actually grief… Yes, it was grief. The process of this docuseries led me to new rooms of shame that I still needed to explore.

Meanwhile, Bill Clinton—a man who has been accused of all sorts of terrible things, a close friend of Harvey Weinstein—recently admitted that he didn't feel the need to apologize to Lewinsky. Lewinsky disagrees.

I'm less disappointed by him, and more disappointed for him. He would be a better man for it… and we, in turn, a better society.

The #MeToo movement has been a wrecking ball to so many men, yet Bill Clinton, perhaps the most prolific of them all, has escaped unscathed.

One man undoes shocking climate change study because... math

Pierre Leverrier/Unsplash

The left cries "science" about anything they want to consider a settled matter. Those who disagree with the left's climate change narrative question this "science." So, the climate change crowd are branded hysterical tree-huggers, and the anti-climate change crowd are naïve hicks.

The truth about climate change, like the truth when it comes to many issues, probably falls somewhere between the two extremes. But when it comes to climate change, it's hard to have a conversation about the "science" when the scientists running the show are already convinced they're absolutely correct and they have the unquestioning major media to back them up.

RELATED: 🤣😂🤣: WaPo claims climate change is the real reason for migrant invasion

Just two weeks ago, a study published in the scientific journal Nature claimed that the oceans are warming much faster than anyone previously thought. Cue the panic and blame the President! It was a high-profile story splashed across major media outlets who were eager to promote more science that confirms one of the left's fundamental doctrines.

The study claimed ocean temperatures have risen around 60% higher than the estimate by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But Nicholas Lewis, a British mathematician and climate-change critic quickly found a "major problem" with the study's conclusion.

Then yesterday, the two scientists who wrote the study admitted Lewis is right about the mistakes they made in their calculations. Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported. Climate scientist Ralph Keeling, who co-authored the report, says they miscalculated their margin of error – which is 10 to 70% – much larger than they originally thought.

Now they say oceans aren't actually warming as fast as they reported.

A 10 to 70 percent margin of error? I thought this climate change science was absolute. Imagine if your job had a margin of error that generous.

Keeling said:

Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean. We really muffed the error margins.

The whole incident is being laughed off as a minor error. But if it wasn't for some British dude poring over this research in his basement and willing to cry foul, this latest climate change "science" would continue to be broadcast as absolute truth. Just like it always is.

UPDATE: Here's how the discussion went on radio. Watch the video below.


Ocean Warming Research “Mistake" youtu.be


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, from California, is doing everything she can to make sure she is re-elected in January to her spot as House Speaker.

Reasons Nancy Pelosi could give: Because she led the Democratic caucus for 16 years, and under her the House shifted hands. In fact, she was House Speaker for four years under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

RELATED: Sorry Nancy Pelosi, Apple's record-shattering buyback program is proof positive tax breaks work

Reason she actually gave: Because she's a woman.

During an interview on CBS Sunday, Pelosi said:

You cannot have the four leaders of Congress [and] the president of the United States, these five people, and not have the voice of women. Especially since women were the majority of the voters, the workers in campaigns, and now part of this glorious victory.

The pink wave, they're calling it. A rise in women politicians, supposedly in reaction to Donald Trump.

Here's the general argument, as described by Politico:

Push her out, and men may take over the party at a time when more than 100 women are heading to Capitol Hill and after female voters have been thoroughly alienated by President Donald Trump. Embrace her, and she'll prioritize legislation empowering women on issues ranging from equal pay to anti-harassment legislation.

Of course, she has a reason to use identity politics instead of merit: There's a concerted effort to have her un-seated.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out.

At least nine representatives have come out and said that Pelosi will be out. Filemon Vela said:

I am 100% confident we can forge new leadership.

Led by, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO), these are the representatives who have openly called for Pelosi's outing: Reps. Bill Foster (D-IL), Seth Moulton (DMA), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Kurt Schrader (D-OR), Conor Lamb (D-PA), and Filemon Vela (D-TX). Campaign staff for incoming Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Jason Crow (D-CO) have said they won't vote for Pelosi.

If they have a single ounce of dignity left, they won't, at least not just because she is a woman.