Glenn Beck: Does Presidential Assassination Program Exist?




Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

A story came out a little while ago that, quite honestly, I can't believe I missed, but someone sent it to me. It's about the "presidential assassination program," where "American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the executive branch that they're involved in terrorism."

There are allegedly "dozens of Americans" on this hit list who "pose a threat" to the United States. National Security Adviser John Brennan said this:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BRENNAN, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There are, in my mind, dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world that are very concerning to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

So, we just shoot them on the spot and don't worry about their Miranda rights as American citizens? Now if it were on the battlefield — fine, I get it. But away from the battlefield?

Let's refresh our memories on what this administration said they believed:

There's no terrorism, just "man-caused disasters"

Won't use the term ''enemy combatant''

Changed the War on Terror to "overseas contingency operation"

Brennan proclaimed that "jihadists" aren't the enemy:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENNAN: Our enemy is not terrorism, because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror, because terror is a state of mind and as Americans we refuse to live in fear. Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists, because jihad is a holy struggle — a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself in one's community — and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

This is from a president who talked about Arab-American families being rounded up off the streets:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process that threatens my civil liberties.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Obama campaigned on closing down Gitmo, because of all the horrors and atrocities being committed there. By the way, has anyone seen the story covered by Fox that Gitmo inmates are watching "Twilight" on brand new flat panel TVs? Sounds horrible, doesn't it?. But Obama said Gitmo had to be closed because it didn't line up with America's "values and ideals" — sitting around all day watching TV on the government's dime does seems to be the new American ideal, but I digress.

Obama promised, if elected, to end the Bush administration system of warrant-less wiretaps. He believed it was an affront to human rights if phone calls to terrorists were monitored.

But it's totally cool to just shoot Americans suspected of terrorism?

I'm a little confused; those values don't seem to line up. They're against the death penalty and they're against sending someone to prison without a trial, but pro-shooting American citizens without a trial? They claim to be pro-trial, but seem to be going against that. Is it possible they are trying to do to the court system what they've already done to Congress: Make it irrelevant?

Where are the people who are not playing politics? Where are there principles? What do they really believe in? We can disagree in America. But to disagree and have an honest debate, we need principles. Where does this administration actually stand? They'll tell you one thing and do the exact opposite.

I want to stop here for a second, because I guarantee you the lowlifes at George Soros' blogs like Media Matters have put down their "World of Warcraft 3" controllers and have rushed back to call me all kinds of names. We are so polarized now that it's an automatic reaction: If Glenn Beck brings it up it's a lie! But, I mentioned that someone sent me this story, which I hadn't seen originally. The quotes we used a moment ago were from the far left-site Salon.com and the segment I watched was from the ever-conservative MSNBC:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLENN GREENWALD, SALON: Look at the controversies that were created during the Bush administration, when the president got caught spying on American citizens without warrant or trying to detain them without due process. Here you're talking about something far more extreme. You're talking about targeting American citizens for murder, for assassination, based merely on the allegation that they're involved in terrorism. No evidence, no charges, no trial — nothing.

DYLAN RATIGAN, MSNBC: His actions create a massive cognitive dissonance that actually allows him to get away with more than George W. Bush could when it comes to encroachments on civil liberties, facilitating theft from the American people or potentially calling you or me a terrorist and trying to have us killed.

GREENWALD: Well, I know that that's the fact...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

I don't think I would have looked into this story if it had been reported on some GOP blog. But these guys are so in the bag for Obama, it bears investigating.

Assassinating American citizens without due process? What happened to Miranda rights? Even the ACLU expressed: "profound concern about recent reports indicating that you have authorized a program that contemplates the killing of suspected terrorists — including U.S. citizens — located far away from zones of actual armed conflict. If accurately described, this program violates international law and, at least insofar as it affects U.S. citizens, it is also unconstitutional."

Notice the ACLU says "if accurately described." We asked the White House if we are accurately describing the presidential assassination program and were told to call the CIA.

America, you are in trouble.

I am one of the strongest guys out there on terror and probably many people on the list are bona fide terrorists who — if I was on a jury to determine if they were terrorists or not — if they were, I'd probably vote to shoot them in the head. Call me a little nostalgic for the Constitution, but let's have that fair trial for American citizens first.

The president is worried about offending radical jihadists. He's very worried about Muslims getting randomly attacked on the streets and scooped up — which, I haven't seen. But I also see who is feared: The angry, racist Tea Parties.

In Missouri, a report was issued for state police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional Campaign for Liberty and Libertarian parties. The report categorized them as militia-influenced terrorists.

That's you with your "Don't Tread on Me" flag, gang.

The Vice President said this weekend that he wouldn't characterize the Tea Parties as racist, but there were members that have expressed really unfortunate comments and added:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Again, it was all over TV, all over your network, you know? A black congressman walking up the stairs of the Capitol.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

There is zero evidence of that. Yet the administration and the media continue run with it. They're setting you up as the racist.

According to "Diversity Consultant" guest on CNN this weekend, Tea Party members are like Jews that served as guards in Nazi concentration camps:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

T.J. HOLMES, CNN: There are African-American members of the Tea Party.

LUKE VISCONTI, DIVERSITY CONSULTANT: Well, sure.

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: There are African-American members of the Tea Party.

VISCONTI: There were Jewish concentration guard camps. Weren't there? I mean, there were capos.

HOLMES: I don't want to make that connection there...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

And they're chomping at the bit for the next Timothy McVeigh. The nut who flew the plane into the building a few months ago, they were eager to label him conservative, but he was far from it. In his manifesto he quotes Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." How about the census worker's death? The media speculated it he was murdered by a conservative who had been influenced by me. But it was suicide.

Here are two headlines: "Neo-Nazis tied to militia patrols in Arizona"; "Tea Party rejects racist label; some concerns remain." They are trying to make you explode, to make you into a danger. But the ignore actual terrorists like ELF and ALF; eco-nuts who blew up a radio tower outside of Seattle. The media ignored that; I only knew about it because I was in Seattle when it happened.

It makes no sense. Why doesn't the president care that the Democrats are on the verge of getting trounced in the elections? Because the president is about to have unstoppable power, making Congress irrelevant.

Have you looked at the financial reform bill? Unelected bureaucrats will decide who to bail out and take over. In health care reform, Kathleen Sebelius' position is mentioned 155 times in the bill. She will call the shots.

Just like with Caesar, Congress is irrelevant. Did you know that in 2012, businesses will have to do a 1099 for any purchase over 600 bucks? It's a paperwork nightmare, especially for small businesses. A freelance artist buys a Mac, they've got to send the form to Apple. Was that in the financial or health care bill? Health care. Why? Power.

One branch has been eaten and the next branch is about to be. Without due process, our president can assassinate American citizens. We're not talking about the power to regulate or the power to tax, but the absolute power to kill.

I want to ask the question that stumped two politicians I was with this weekend: What is the definition of a dictator? Where is the line? They didn't seem to know the exact answer. I suggest we find it and quickly.

— Watch Glenn Beck weekdays at 5p & 2a ET on Fox News Channel

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."

What happened?

MSNBC's Katy Tur didn't bother to hide her pro-gun control bias in an interview with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the wake of the Santa Fe High School killings.

RELATED: Media Are Pushing Inflated '18 School Shootings' Statistic. Here Are the Facts.

What did she ask?

As Pat pointed out while sitting in for Glenn on today's show, Tur tried to “badger" Paxton into vowing that he would push for a magical fix that will make schools “100 percent safe." She found it “just wild" that the Texas attorney general couldn't promise that schools will ever be completely, totally safe.

“Can you promise kids in Texas today that they're safe to go to school?" Tur pressured Paxton.

“I don't think there's any way to say that we're ever 100 percent safe," the attorney general responded.

What solutions did the AG offer?

“We've got a long way to go," Paxton said. He listed potential solutions to improve school safety, including installing security officers and training administrators and teachers to carry a gun.

Pat's take:

“Unbelievable," Pat said on today's show. “Nobody can promise [100 percent safety]."

Every president from George Washington to Donald Trump has issued at least one executive order (with the exception of William Harrison who died just 31 days into his presidency) and yet the U.S. Constitution doesn't even mention executive orders. So how did the use of this legislative loophole become such an accepted part of the job? Well, we can thank Franklin Roosevelt for that.

Back at the chalkboard, Glenn Beck broke down the progression of the executive order over the years and discussed which US Presidents have been the “worst offenders."

RELATED: POWER GRAB: Here's how US presidents use 'moments of crisis' to override Constitutional law

“It's hard to judge our worst presidential overreachers on sheer numbers alone," said Glenn. “However, it's not a shock that FDR issued by far the most of any president."

Our first 15 presidents issued a combined total of 143. By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3721, more than twice the next runner up, Woodrow Wilson, at 1803.

“Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by decree, until we get to this guy: President Obama," Glenn explained. “He didn't issue 3000, or even 1800; he did 276 executive orders, but it was the power of those orders. He instituted 560 major regulations classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having 'significant economic or social impacts.' That's 50 percent more regulations than George W. Bush's presidency — and remember, everybody thought he was a fascist."

President Obama blamed an obstructionist Congress for forcing him to bypass the legislative process. By executive order, President Obama decreed the U.S. join the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan and transgender restrooms. He also authorized spying in US citizens through section 702 of FISA, used the IRS to target political opponents and ordered military action in Libya without Congressional permission.

All of these changes were accepted by the very people who now condemn President Trump for his use of executive orders — many of which were issued to annul President Obama's executive orders, just as President Obama annulled President Bush's executive orders when he took office … and therein lies the rub with executive orders.

“That's not the way it's supposed to work, nor would we ever want it to be," said Glenn. “We have to have the Constitution and laws need to originate in Congress."

Watch the video above to find out more.

Six months ago, I alerted readers to the very attractive benefits that the TreasuryDirect program offers to investors who are defensively sitting on cash right now.

Since then, those benefits have continued to improve. Substantially.

Back in November, by holding extremely conservative short-term (i.e., 6-months or less) Treasury bills, TreasuryDirect participants were receiving over 16x more in interest payments vs keeping their cash in a standard bank savings account.

Today, they're now receiving over 30 times more. Without having to worry about the risk of a bank "bail-in" or failure.

So if you're holding cash right now and NOT participating in the TreasuryDirect program, do yourself a favor and read on. If you're going to pass on this opportunity, at least make it an 'eyes-wide-open' decision.

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

There are many prudent reasons to hold cash in today's dangerously overvalued financial markets, as we've frequently touted here at PeakProsperity.com.

Well, there's now one more good reason to add to the list: holding cash in short-term Treasurys is now meeting/beating the dividend returns offered by the stock market:

"Cash Is King" Again - 3-Month Bills Yield More Than Stocks (Zero Hedge)
'Reaching for yield' just got a lot easier...
For the first time since February 2008, three-month Treasury bills now have a yield advantage over the S&P; 500 dividend yield (and dramatically lower risk).
Investors can earn a guaranteed 1.90% by holding the 3-month bills or a risky 1.89% holding the S&P; 500...

The longest period of financial repression in history is coming to an end...

And it would appear TINA is dead as there is now an alternative.

And when you look at the total return (dividends + appreciation) of the market since the start of 2018, stocks have returned only marginally better than 3-month Treasurys. Plus, those scant few extra S&P; points have come with a LOT more risk.

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

In my June report Less Than Zero: How The Fed Killed Saving, I explained how the Federal Reserve's policy of holding interest rates at record lows has decimated savers. Those who simply want to park money somewhere "safe" can't do so without losing money in real terms.

To drive this point home: back in November, the average interest rate being offered in a US bank savings account was an insutling 0.06%. Six months later, nothing has changed:

(Source

That's virtually the same as getting paid 0%. But it's actually worse than that, because once you take inflation into account, the real return on your savings is markedly negative.

And to really get your blood boiling, note that the Federal Reserve has rasied the federal funds rate it pays banks from 1.16% in November to 1.69% in April. Banks are now making nearly 50% more money on the excess reserves they park at the Fed -- but are they passing any of that free profit along to their depositors? No....

This is why knowing about the TreasuryDirect program is so important. It's a way for individual investors savvy enough to understand the game being played to bend some of its rules to their favor and limit the damage they suffer.

Below is an updated version (using today's rates) of my recap of TreasuryDirect, which enables you to get over 30x more interest on your cash savings than your bank will pay you, with lower risk.

TreasuryDirect

For those not already familiar with it, TreasuryDirect is a service offered by the United States Department of the Treasury that allows individual investors to purchase Treasury securities such as T-Bills, notes and bonds directly from the U.S. government.

You purchase these Treasury securities by linking a TreasuryDirect account to your personal bank account. Once linked, you use your cash savings to purchase T-bills, etc from the US Treasury. When the Treasury securities you've purchased mature or are sold, the proceeds are deposited back into your bank account.

So why buy Treasuries rather than keep your cash savings in a bank? Two main reasons:

  • Much higher return: T-Bills are currently offering an annualized return rate between 1.66-2.04%. Notes and bonds, depending on their duration, are currently offering between 2.6% - 3.1%
  • Extremely low risk: Your bank can change the interest rate on your savings account at any time -- with Treasury bills, your rate of return is locked in at purchase. Funds in a bank are subject to risks such as a bank bail-in or the insolvency of the FDIC depositor protection program -- while at TreasuryDirect, your funds are being held with the US Treasury, the institution with the lowest default risk in the country for reasons I'll explain more in a moment.

Let's look at a quick example. If you parked $100,000 in the average bank savings account for a full year, you would earn $60 in interest. Let's compare this to the current lowest-yielding TreasuryDirect option: continuously rolling that same $100,000 into 4-week T-Bills for a year:

  1. Day 1: Funds are transferred from your bank account to TreasuryDirect to purchase $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at auction yielding 1.68%
  2. Day 28: the T-Bills mature and the Treasury holds the full $100,000 proceeds in your TreasuryDirect account. Since you've set up the auto-reinvestment option, TreasuryDirect then purchases another $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at the next auction.
  3. Days 29-364: the process repeats every 4 weeks
  4. Day 365: assuming the average yield for T-Bills remained at 1.68%, you will have received $1,680 in interest in total throughout the year from the US Treasury.

$1,680 vs $60. That's a 27x difference in return.

And the comparison only improves if you decide to purchase longer duration (13-week or 26-week) bills instead of the 4-week ones:

Repeating the above example for a year using 13-week bills would yield $1,925. Using 26-week bills would yield $2,085. A lot better (34x better!) than $60.

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

So what are the downsides to using TreasuryDirect? There aren't many.

The biggest one is opportunity cost. While your money is being held in a T-Bill, it's tied up at the US Treasury. If you suddenly need access to those funds, you have to wait until the bill matures.

But T-Bill durations are short. 4 weeks is not a lot of time to have to wait. (If you think the probability is high you may to need to pull money out of savings sooner than that, you shouldn't be considering the TreasuryDirect program.)

Other than that, TreasuryDirect offers an appealing reduction in risk.

If your bank suddenly closes due to a failure, any funds invested in TreasuryDirect are not in your bank account, so are not subject to being confiscated in a bail-in.

Instead, your money is held as a T-Bill, note or bond, which is essentially an obligation of the US Treasury to pay you in full for the face amount. The US Treasury is the single last entity in the country (and quite possibly, the world) that will ever default on its obligations. Why? Because Treasurys are the mechanism by which money is created in the US. Chapter 8 from The Crash Course explains:

As a result, to preserve its ability to print the money it needs to function, the US government will bring its full force and backing to bear in order to ensure confidence in the market for Treasurys.

Meaning: the US government won't squelch on paying you back the money you lent it. If required, it will just print the money it needs to repay you.

So, How To Get Started?

Usage of TreasuryDirect is quite low among investors today. Many are unaware of the program. Others simply haven't tried it out.

And let's be real: it's crazy that we live in a world where a 1.68-2.09% return now qualifies as an exceptionally high yield on savings. A lot of folks just can't get motivated to take action by rates that low. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't -- money left on the table is money forfeited.

So, if you're interested in learning more about the TreasuryDirect program, start by visiting their website. Like everything operated by the government, it's pretty 'no frills'; but their FAQ page addresses investors' most common questions.

Before you decide whether or not to fund an account there, be sure to discuss the decision with your professional financial advisor to make sure it fits well with your personal financial situation and goals. (If you're having difficulty finding a good one, consider scheduling a free discussion with PeakProsperity.com's endorsed financial advisor -- who has considerable experience managing TreasuryDirect purchases for many of its clients).

In Part 2: A Primer On How To Use TreasuryDirect, we lay out the step-by-step process for opening, funding and transacting within a TreasuryDirect account. We've created it to be a helpful resource for those self-directed individuals potentially interested in increasing their return on their cash savings in this manner.

Yes, we savers are getting completely abused by our government's policies. So there's some poetic justice in using the government's own financing instruments to slightly lessen the sting of the whip.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

NOTE: PeakProsperity.com does not have any business relationship with the TreasuryDirect program. Nor is anything in the article above to be taken as an offer of personal financial advice. As mentioned, discuss any decision to participate in TreasuryDirect with your professional financial advisor before taking action.