RADIOMarch 15, 2025

Glenn Beck SLAMS Krugman: Chinese Slave Labor Over US Jobs?!

Glenn tears into economist Paul Krugman’s recent Substack article, “Making Sweatshops Great Again,” which laments Donald Trump’s plan to bring manufacturing back to the United States. Of course, we should manufacture things like computer chips in the US, as Krugman insists. But what’s wrong with bringing sneaker and textile manufacturing back? Would Krugman rather child slaves in China continue making them?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Paul Krugman writes, on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue near the corner of 39th Street, there's a larger than life statue of a garment worker, a man wearing a skull cap, hunched over a sewing machine. The statue is a tribute to the locale's history.

It stands in the middle of what's still called the Garment District! After all, in 1950, New York's apparel industry employed 340,000 workers, but that industry is gone now. Not just from midtown Manhattan, but from the United States as a whole!

Having moved to low wage countries, like China, and increasingly Bangladesh. No serious person mourns the off-shoring of the apparel employment.

I do! As someone who would like to wear American clothing, who has tried to help save the Cohen denim company, which made the best denim in the world. They're out. You know why? Can't afford to make it here. You know why? Because we offshored everything. You know why? Because we're stupid, that's why. So I actually do mourn that, but I don't really count in Paul's world, but I digress. For a poor nation like Bangladesh, apparel jobs are a big step up from the alternatives. Even in our heyday, mostly, it only employed immigrants, who despite being represented by powerful unions were paid low wages.

And often faced harsh working conditions. Oh. Wait a minute.

So wait a minute. Let me see if I can get this right. What about your insistence of keeping people here, because they will work for low-paying jobs. You remember jobs Americans won't do. So are you now saying, we will want to get rid of all those low-paying jobs that all Americans won't do? I mean, I'm not with you, Paul.

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here. I mean, have you changed your mind on that? Is there no one in America that would gladly take a sewing job over scrubbing toilets in a hotel?

Nobody. As I said, no serious person wants the apparel industry to come back. Again, but Donald Trump's economic team aren't serious people.

This come from the biggest clown of my lifetime. Last week, Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary went on CNBC to explain that Trump's tariffs will bring back US production of T-shirts and sneakers and towels.

The host just started laughing at him, because we know when we all know better than he does. And there's no reason to believe that he -- he or his boss think this was a joke. And their nostalgia for industries in the past, seems to be matched by surprising hostility towards the industries of the future.

Oh, okay. All right. Now, we're starting to get good. Again, our hard-working dishwashers. Fruit pickers. Lawn maintenance. Or service style jobs. For people just like you, Paul, that will hire people at a lower wage because they're illegal, and you can get away with anything that you want.

Oops. I mean, you can help them achieve the American dream. Are these jobs nostalgic?

Because with the onset of AI in the next few years, I think they are! But wait. I'm hostile towards AI?

I'm confused, but Krugman goes on.

Now the Trumpiest view of international trade pretty much begins and ends with a view that whenever Americans buy something made abroad, no matter how much cheaper it is, it may be to import a good, rather than try to produce it domestically. And that's a win for foreigners and a loss for America.

No. Paul!

God, you're stupid.

Products that are more inexpensive. Or that are inexpensive, are always a win for Americans. Always. Unless it completely guts our ability as a country to stand on our own.

Also, why should we give so much money to the biggest slave owner country the world has ever known?

Message to you progressives, America is not so bad. Compared to what China is doing currently!

Now, instead of standing up to them, you know, we -- we just want to be independent, so we can!

And I would like to live without the slave labor of some of these countries.

You know, if we're making sneakers here in the US, at least it wouldn't be a line full of children, spraying, you know, led paint on Nike shoes, like it's most likely happening away from our shores. But I digress. Again, by shipping our jobs to China, Paul. Buying our i Phone and socks from China. Are you not doing the same things the elites like you did before and during and even after the Civil War? Well, it will hurt the economy!

We've got -- jobs here in America on our American assembly lines actually allow people to afford college for the next generation or even themselves, to better their stations. Even though you have done everything you can to destroy our universities through your horrible progressive ideas.

And, you know, through government subsidies that you have raised the cost of college.

You know, since we got into the business of getting loans for colleges, guaranteeing those loans. In 1963, tuition was an adjusted -- inflation adjusted $2,487. Now it's almost $10,000. That's an increase of 292 percent. Four times the cost, in real dollars, that was in 1963!

What happened? What changed?

What changed?

He continues. I mean, Trump has slapped high tariffs on Canadian aluminum, which is cheap, because smelting uses a lot of electricity. And Canada has a lot of abundant hydropower, and aluminum is important for US manufacturing. Yet, Trump somehow thinks Canada is exploiting us, by offering us a key industrial import at a good price.

But back to T-shirts and sneakers. We definitely shouldn't be making those for ourselves.

But what should we be making instead?

Well, here's what we are going to be making, Paul. Nothing. We're not going to make anything.

Unless, we have a hard-working, well-educated, motivated workforce, with cheap energy, and the cutting of crazy regulation. In which companies can afford to grow and build.

And want to come here. Because we have the best conditions. And the best labor. And the cheapest energy.

That's what made America, America.

But what you have done, you have killed the well-educated with your support of the teachers unions. And everybody else controlling EDU. You want an example. Just check what you were saying, while our children were out of school, during COVID. Because of your support.

You know, next thing that you cut was the motivated by advocating for higher taxes. More red tape. Plus, out of control labor unions.

You know, where the lazy and the corrupt, they think can't be fired. Can't be fired. You killed motivation.

Well-educated. You killed that one. The motivated, you killed that one. You killed that one. Because not only the red tape. But with DEI and ESG, and CRT programs. You also teach everybody, you'll never make it without us. Why try?

You've killed everything. And do I need to even remind you of your anti-cheap energy lectures? And you love the growth. Energy regulation. Because, oh, my gosh, we have to get rid of our -- we have to get rid of our hydroelectric power here. And take those dams down. Because that's so colonial.

Oh, my gosh.

I can't take this guy. What free trade purist would answer, whatever the market decides, let private firms decide what's profitable in America. And even if you're not a free trade purist. You have to admit the government doesn't have a great record of picking winners.

Oh, my gosh, have you just admitted this out loud, without even knowing this? Your support for the Green New Deal!

Your support for things like, I don't know, Solyndra. Did I miss an op-ed, where you're like, boy, that was a mistake?

Yet I, like many economists, have come around to The View. Listen to this one. This is his big announcement. That maybe we should engage in a limited amount of industrial policy, using subsidies.

Oh, wow!

Paul, the heavens have opened up for you.

You have finally come around to the idea of government subsidies. How refreshing from you.

What a shock. What an unbelievable turnaround for you. You mean to tell me, you've gone from a supporter of the public private partnerships. The green nigh deal that just funds entire sectors.

Big government programs.

To now somebody who can -- who can finally embrace the idea of government bailing out failures.

Wow!

Making partners with private corporations. With our government using the little guy's tax dollars, to give to the billion dollar companies.

Money from the average person. The average working man and woman. Right to the billionaire. Wow, you have come so far, Paul!

You really have!

Good for you. You know, there are two big reasons. Limited industrial policies, back in vogue.

That word isn't even in vogue.

One is that it's become increasingly clear that there are important positive spillovers, between technology firms, Silicon Valley is now more than the sum of the individual companies, located in south of San Francisco.

It's kind of an industrial ecosystem of shared services. A pool of skilled workers. And an exchange of knowledge!

Oh! Paul, you mean like every other industry, somehow?

But this one is different?

I mean, other than Silicon Valley being originally funded by the DOD, CIA, and the federal government, how is this different?

You know, again, other than it was the greatest concentration of wealth, perhaps ever in the history of man.

Think of that. Silicon Valley, probably the greatest collection of wealth in the history of all mankind, we've got to get the government in there to help those poor, starving billionaires.

The -- aren't these the titans. The billionaires. Are they somehow different than the titan and billionaires that have to pay their fair share.

And who are unelected fascists like Elon Musk.

I mean, I'm so confused, Paul.

Are you now admitting that Elon Musk alone is capable of creating, quote, an industrial ecosystem of shared services? A pool of skilled workers. And with his willingness and action, not to patent technology. But to release it. To help the planet.

Is he an important force, that for an exchange of knowledge, it -- wouldn't he be one of those?

If we want America to be competitive and high-tech, we need government policies to encourage the formation of these industrial ecosystems. In other grimmer reasons, we need industrial policy because of geopolitics.

Circa 2010. Listen to this. Circa 2010. No, not many people worried about how much of the world's production of advanced semiconductors, which are now crucial to almost everything, was concentrated in Taiwan. No, Paul!

You weren't! In 2010, you couldn't see over the horizon. You know that quote from Paul Krugman, that you gave me earlier? About the internet.

I mean, you were the one that wasn't concerned about semiconductors and high-powered chips.

STU: 1998. The growth of the internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in Metcalf's law, which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the squared number of participants becomes apparent.

Most people have nothing to say to each other. By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machines. That's so good.

GLENN: Well, forget about that.

Now we know the age of large-scale warfare isn't over! And it's dangerous to rely on crucial products and industrial clusters easily threatened by potential adversaries. That -- just that paragraph.

Just that paragraph -- just that, Paul, proves everything else you've said in your stupid op-ed, to be absolutely the opposite.

Or may I just say, duh!

And duh! These realizations lay behind one of the Biden administrations two major pieces of industrial policy legislation. The Chips and Science Act, designed to encourage production, unlike the Inflation Reduction Act, which sought to use industrial policy to fight climate change! Climate change.

The Chips Act has had a substantial bipartisan support. Yeah, it did. It did. As did slavery in the 1800s. As did the rounding of the Japanese under another progressive president.

In fact, wow. So did men can actually be women? Just a couple of years ago. It doesn't make it true, Paul. Even though in an era of intense partisanship, a significant number of Republicans were willing to back the effort, but during his speech to Congress last week, Trump veered off into a demand that Congress would repeal that act.

It's not clear what he has against the Chips Act. Although, according to the New York Times, many semi conductor companies attribute his hostility simply to personal animus to former President Biden.

Yeah. You can't think of another thing, that might make him against the Chip Act.

It's weird, Paul.

I went to an expert, I trust more than you. Grok!

And asked it, besides personal animus, why might the president be against the Chips Act? I'll share that answer with you, Paul.

I can't figure out, other than his personal animus against former President Biden, why he would be against the Chips Act. Uh-huh.

Thank you, Paul Krugman. So I just went to Grok, and I said, is there another reason besides personal animus, that President Trump might be against the Chips Act?

Here's what Grok told me today. Cost, and perceived wastefulness.

Trump has described that the Chips Act is a horrible, horrible thing, that involves giving hundreds of billions of dollars to companies without sufficient return.

From this perspective, he might view the $52.7 billion in subsidies, plus additional lending authority. As an inefficient use of taxpayer money.

If his goal is to save America, he could argue these funds might be better directed elsewhere.

Two, preference over tariffs for subsidies. Trump has constantly advocated for tariffs as a tool to incentive domestic manufacturing, claiming they could achieve the same outcome as the Chips Act, bringing the semiconductor to the United States without the government spending any tax dollars.

Let me point to Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing company. Increasing its US investment. As evidence that these tariffs, or the threat of them are working.

From his viewpoint, this approach avoids handing out money to wealthy corporations. Aligning with a belief that market pressure is a more sustainable way to bolster American industry.

Three, skepticism of corporate giveaways. I don't know.

Paul, that sounds like something that you would say, as you're shipping your country -- right there, on the porch in your rocking chair. Thinking, I'm so smart!

The Bubba Effect: Is America headed for collapse?

America just crossed a constitutional red line — and Glenn Beck breaks down why this moment may be the one historians look back on as the final warning before national fracture. From Congress signaling military insubordination, to judges erasing separation-of-powers, to a cultural class obsessed with ideology instead of safeguarding the republic, the “Bubba Effect” is now in full force. Glenn explains why collapsing institutions, media silence, and public distrust are creating a perfect storm — and why citizenship, not rage, is the only path to restoring the republic. Are we witnessing the moment America snaps, or the moment Americans finally wake up?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We're glad you're here. I want to talk to you today. Today's theme of the show is the Bubba Effect. Because it's here. And we are seeing it in full force. I will show it to you in Dearborn, Michigan. I will show it to you with Nick Fuentes. I will show it to you, with Epstein.

And I just showed it to you, a different kind of the Bubba Effect, institutional Bubba Effect. With that statement that came out, you know, telling the troops to, you know, disown, you know, the president. Or don't -- don't follow orders.

Question orders.

And you should do that. And that is something they're taught in the military. But they're taught within the system.

You know, it's not just that they made a message to the military.

They sent that message.

Imagine if the Duma would have sent that message to Putin. And we received it, and saw it. We would be like, their government is fall apart.

Their military is falling apart.

Look at this. What message is that sending to China and Russia and all their allies.

It's bad. It's very bad. There is a moment in every republic. Every empire. Every nation. The historians will look back and say, yep. That was it.

That was the biggest warning. That was the last warning.

And I think we are living in that moment right now.

When Congress told active duty military to ignore the orders of the commander-in-chief, you've got a problem.

When you can't get a federal judge impeached, because he approved something that has never been done in American history.

Granting one branch of the government, the right to secretly surveil the other without notice.

You have to -- constitutionally, you must notify you're under surveillance.

Okay?

If they're doing a mass thing. You have to notify.

Because that's a second branch!

Otherwise, you break up the branches, okay?

These are not political stories.

These are constitutional earthquakes.

And no one is talking about them! So now the question is: What now?

What has to happen, if the republic has to survive the stress of these fractures. That everybody seems to be creating or dancing on.

Let me outline it plainly here. Because all of us have a role. One, Congress. Congress, you have to discipline your own. If lawmakers can publicly encourage military resistance without consequence, then Congress has surrendered its moral authority.

You cannot police the executive branch. You can't oversee the intelligence agencies. You can't demand transparency, if you cannot police your own members.

Censure is not vengeance. It's maintenance. It's routine. It's necessary.
Constitutional maintenance. And if Congress refuses to do it, then the precedent remains. It gets worse.

And history shows us, no nation survives a politicized military. Ever!

Two, the military.

You to have restate the -- the chain of command.

Publicly and immediately. The Joint Chiefs don't need a press conference. They don't need hearings. They just need to say, the United States armed forces obey all lawful orders of the president.

That sentence, those exact words, that's the firewall between an American republic, and every failed nation in history.

The silence so far is not reassuring.

Three, the judiciary.

Especially the Supreme Court. Close the door on the book -- the Boasberg case! He opened a door that is so dangerous.

No judge, no matter how noble his intentions, has the authority to rewrite the separation of powers.

If one branch can secretly spy on another, then you have no checks and balances! You had a surveillance government. The Supreme Court must intervene. Not Trump! Not even Congress. But for the survival of coequal branches, if they don't, this is the new normal!

And you don't come back from that one, either! And now, the hardest part, the that one everybody talks about. Nobody does. The role of the cultural leaders and people like me in the media. In a functioning republic, this is supposed to be where the media steps in!

This is where the cultural leaders. The voices, left, right, center, stop obsessing over click bait. And start explaining to the people, what just happened. Why it's unprecedented, why it matters. How we as citizens need to respond. But look around. Do you see anyone in the press doing that?

Do you see anyone in Hollywood, doing that?

Do you see anyone in academia doing that? No. You don't. Because America's cultural class no longer sees its role as the guardian of the republic. Who is the guardian?

They're guardians of ideology. So what do we do?

Well, we do what Americans have always done, when institutionals fail. We step in our self. But if we don't care, that's it.

The Founders never trusted the press.

They trusted the people.

So that's where we are now.

And we all have to model what a responsible media. Or a responsible citizen should be doing.

So let me show you right now, how a responsible broadcaster responds to a constitutional breach.

My fellow Americans. This is not about Donald Trump.

This is not about Democrats. This is not about Republicans.

It's not how you vote.

This is about whether the military stays under civilian authority.

Whether our adversaries overseas are given the indication that we are ripe for the taking. This is about judges, that want to erase the separation of powers!

The separation of power is what has kept this constitutional republic going for all of these years!

Most importantly, this is about whether your children will inherit a functioning republic. And if the mainstream media won't tell you, then I will!

That right there, is the job. To preserve the republic!

So our children and grandchildren and that is what we all should be doing. That's what the press should be doing. That's what the cultural figures should be doing.

You call out the violations of Constitutional order, no matter who benefits. No matter who gets angry. No matter what tribe demands your silence. This is what leadership looks like!

This is wrong! This has never been done before. This breaks Constitutional boundaries.

And it has to be corrected immediately!

Americans, you understand the Bubba Effect is here. And it's everywhere!

You're going to see people that you're like, well, he's really wrong on that! And that's really outrageous. And I don't agree with that.

But at least he's right on this one!

And it will always be to question the system. To break it down.

So what do you do?

Well, you don't riot. You don't panic. You don't is it fair. We're headed into Thanksgiving. Give thanks for the crosses that we bear. Give thanks because our liberty, our freedom, should we decide to keep it, will be more valuable to us.

But you should call your representatives. I'm so sick of calling my representatives. But you should do it anyway.

You need to demand transparency. You need to insist on consequences! Don't normalize what is happening. Well, they're all like that! Stop it!
Stop it.

If that's what you expect, that is what you will get. But understand this: The cure for Constitutional drift is not rage. The answer is not anger. It's not division. It is citizenship!

It's also not apathy. If we sleep through this, the system will break, guaranteed.

But if you wake up, stand up, and insist on boundaries, eventually it will happen! I know you're tired.

I know you don't want to do it anymore. I know you're just desperate for an answer. Because the time is running short.

But now is not the time to act in -- in ways where we dishonor ourselves. In ways where we -- we throw in with a lot. We're like, that's really bad!

But at least they're pointing it out. You point it out! Once you start standing up, once we as a people, all you need is 20 percent! Twenty percent. Anywhere between 15 and 20 percent of the American people. If they understand the Constitution, if they understand the Bill of Rights. If they understand that God has put us in this place, at this time, and each of us have a reason to live!

We're here for a reason!

Everything snaps back into place!

It always has!

From 1800 to 1868 to 1974.

Institutions bend.

People break. But the Constitution can be restored.

But if -- and only if, you know it, you love it. You never betray it yourself, and you demand it of the people who represent us.

5,000 missed wires? Epstein bank scandal just EXPLODED

New evidence suggests that JPMorgan Chase overlooked 5,000 "yellow ticket" suspiciouos activity flags connected to Jeffrey Epstein, which resulted in #1.$ BILLION in sketchy transactions. Glenn Beck explains why this may be the scandal that finally brings some of Epstein's enablers to justice.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So where does the real story lie with the Epstein story? And I think it's the money, okay?

That's the real story. I'll tell you about the billions who have gone to terrorists from the US and Minnesota taxpayers here in a second.

And when I talk about that, what most people will do, is they'll fight over ICE.

They'll say it's Islamophobia. They'll fight over CAIR. Whatever. USAID, when that went down. Well, that's just about feeding hungry children. It's all misdirection, to get you away from the money. So let me bring this now to Epstein.

When a banker detects suspicious activity, when they see something that looks like money laundering. Human trafficking. Tax evasion. Sending money overseas to terrorists. They don't send a polite note to the supervisor, in hopes somebody reads it.

They are required by federal law, after 9/11, to file what is called a SAR. It's a Suspicious Activity Report.

A SAR.

They have to report that directly to the US Treasury Department. Through FinCEN. Financial center of crimes. Okay?

Once a SAR is filed. The bank isn't even allowed to tell you that they filed it. They just hit send. It's locked. The Treasury is notified. Now, this system like I said, was built after 9/11.

Built after decades of financial corruption.

A system design that no single banker. No single executive. No single billionaire can make illicit money and then have it just disappear offshore.

This is -- this is activated. If you draw $10,000 out, of your account. You are moving $10,000. You get a SAR report. And it goes directly to the Treasury. And when the bank flags something suspicious, it's called -- the SAR is called a yellow ticket. And it's not a suggestion. It's not a memo. It is a federal alert. That triggers monitoring by the Treasury, the FBI, Homeland Security. Depending on what the flags indicate. Now, that you understand that, let me talk to you about Jeffrey Epstein.

Between 2002 and 2016, JPMorgan Chase filed seven SARS. Seven yellow tickets on Epstein. Seven! Over 14 years. Those reports flagged a grand total of $4.3 million in sketchy activity.

Okay. It's all -- you know, it's a decade replace plus, $4 million.

You can make all kinds of excuses for that. Right? But after Epstein died, when the government finally unsealed the sex trafficking details, details that they had held on to for years. JP Morgan Chase suddenly panicked. Because the floodgates suddenly opened. In 2019, two SARS were flagged. Two SARS were sent to the Treasury.

They flagged over 5,000 suspicious wire transfers. We're not talking $4 million.

This is 1.3 billion dollars. Five thousand suspicious activity transfers, and transactions, of 1.3 billion dollars.

Now, let me just say this clearly, so nobody really misses the gravity of this. You do not accidentally forget to report 5,000 suspicious wires.

You don't like, where did we put that $1.3 billion.

Okay. You don't misplace a billion dollars in wires, to foreign banks and Shell companies, connected to then a convicted sex offender under federal investigation. It doesn't happen. It doesn't happen.

It doesn't happen, because a Jr banker made a mistake.

It doesn't happen because the compliance officer was sleepy. It doesn't happen because somebody's inbox was full.

To not report that level of suspicious activities directly to the Treasury, first of all, is against all federal law.

And at a minimum, multiple officers, multiple departments. Multiple signoffs, choosing not to look.

$1.3 billion. 5,000 suspicious activities. Hmm.

Why?

Why did nobody report that?

Well, now, according to internal emails, JP Morgan Chase held off the filing of the SARS. Now, let me ask you this: If you had one suspicious -- if you withdrew $10,000 from your bank, are you really clear that your bank would do what the federal government directs. And I have to report this.

And it's going to go to the Treasury. Are you clear that they would do that on you?

Because the answer is, yes, they would. Federal law requires it!

But the bank decided, well, we want to continue to work with Epstein. He's valuable. He's connected. He's a referral engine to some of the richest people in the world.

He had sensitivities according to the bank. Wire transfers to Russian banks. Wire transfers to Shell corporations. Wire transfers from a guy who is engaged in sex trafficking.

Links to top political figures. Relationships with two US presidents. Both of whom Epstein at various times claimed to be very, very close with.

Let me explain: Something that most people don't know. Banks file SARS, suspicious activity reports, to the Treasury, for far less than this.

$10,000. They flag it. A business wires to an unusual location. They flag it!

It's sent to the Treasury. A client sends repetitive round number transfers to an unknown entity. They flag it!

It goes to the Treasury. A wire connected to anything resembling terror or human trafficking or exploitation. They flag it right now.

Banks don't wait for a 5,000 -- for 5,000 suspicious transactions. They don't wait. They file over one!

So how did Epstein get through 5,000 suspicious activity reports without triggering any alarms.

Not because the alarms were broken. Because they weren't. It's because somebody turned them off.

I would like to know who turned those off.
I would like to know, why they were turned off? I would like to know, if it was just the leadership of the bank. I would like to know, that every single one of those bank officers. All the way to the top, go to prison!

Not some slap on the wrist. Not some, well, you're well-connected. So we're going to let this other guy pay for it.

I want all of them in prison. You broke federal law!

Something we all -- all of us have to abide by.

We -- we have had our Treasury. We've had our government snoop into our lives. Watch everything we do. And we're not connected to human trafficking. We're not selling children. We're not convicted felons.

We're not transferring 1.3 billion dollars after we've been convicted.

SARS are not -- these suspicious activity reports, they are not decided by a single teller. They have to pass -- they pass through compliance teams. Risk divisions. Bank lawyers. Federal liaison officers. This isn't one bad apple. It's an entire system. And Senator Wyden, no conservative firebrand, I might point out, is now openly saying what everybody knows privately. JP Morgan Chase should face criminal investigations, and it should go all the way to the top!

And it should not be civil. It should be criminal. Because if you or I did this, if we had sent just a handful suspicious wires, the bank would freeze your account, notify the Treasury, before you could blink!

But Jeffrey Epstein, a billion dollars worth of exceptions. Hmm. Hmm.

Wow. That seems much more important than a stupid birthday card!

Let me ask you this, the question the DOJ doesn't want to touch.

How many people does it take inside a bank to make 5,000 suspicious transactions just vanish for 17 years? Is it five people? Is it ten? Is it a department head, a board member?

Five thousand. 1.3 billion dollars. Was Epstein. Did it happen because Epstein was useful to the powerful?

So nobody wanted to know. Did this happen because others were involved?

Does it really matter what their excuse was?

Here's the terrifying question. If a bank can look the other way on $1.3 billion for a sex trafficker. What else have the banks learned to ignore?

Hmm.

I'm beginning to think the banks are a real problem. Hmm.

There's a new idea.

This story isn't just about Epstein.

This is about the machinery that allowed him to operate. All of the middleman. All of the financial networks. All of the institutions, that treated him like an asset, instead of a criminal.

And I do believe he was an asset. Intelligence asset.

I do believe he was probably an asset to our intelligence. Although, you I hear both sides.

No, no, no. That's not true. Oh, yes. It's definitely true.

I don't know what the truth is. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, he was an asset for a foreign government. Maybe Israel.

Maybe somebody else. I don't know.

But also an asset for us.

That helps all the. Apparently.

We do all kinds of horrible things. Why not?

Senator Wyden says, he wants to follow the money.

Well, good!

For the first time in a long time, maybe the money is finally pointing us somewhere. And it's not just here.

And, by the way, if anybody still believes this ends with one dead man in jail. I don't think you're paying attention!

Because this is where it really leads.

Are Antidepressants (SSRI's) Worsening America's Mental Health Crisis?

A former FDA psychiatrist reveals what Big Pharma never told the public: the “chemical imbalance” story behind antidepressants was never proven — and SSRIs don’t fix a biological defect, they numb the brain. Glenn Beck and Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring break down how America became the most drugged nation in the world and how millions are being overprescribed medications that can cause paradoxical agitation, emotional blunting, and even suicidal behavior. With 15% of Americans — including millions of children — on SSRIs, are we facing a public health crisis hiding in plain sight?

Was the Cracker Barrel Rebrand a SABOTAGE?! - Glenn Beck Reveals what REALLY Happened

Cracker Barrel’s massive public meltdown didn’t happen by accident. Behind the scenes, the company was bleeding institutional knowledge, taking disastrous advice from DEI strategists, and making decisions that alienated the very customers who built the brand. A major board shake-up, the quiet removal of DEI frameworks, and the sudden resignation of a key DEI-linked board member reveal how deep the problems ran — and how desperate the company was to course-correct. This breakdown uncovers what really went wrong, how Cracker Barrel was influenced internally, and why the Glenn Beck interview triggered major internal moves that the public was never supposed to see.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, you can just questions about the special tonight.

STU: Yeah, for sure. I'm interested in this.

It's a big -- you know, a big special. You're back and forth with it. With them there. Was kind of fascinating. Right?

You have a situation where they -- they do seem to be sort of avoiding the question there on DEI. Is that how you read it? Oh, we lost connection with Glenn. Is that what's about to go?

Well, that's how I read it at least. You know, you listen to that clip of them going back and forth and it does appear to be them just sort of avoiding the question. We should get back to Glenn. Because I know he has this breaking news on this happen. Should we go to another clip on the Cracker Barrel thing, while we're waiting for Glenn to reconnect? Because it sort of sets the stage. You know, it was interesting to see their approach here, which is to try to explain themselves and try to work themselves through what is one of the biggest PR disasters probably in our lifetimes.

And let's go to this next clip.

VOICE: If we came out of COVID, A, trying to hire 50,000 people, we have a lot of our employees, original -- we did -- we lost a lot of very long tenured employees. A lot of them, a little bit older, and scared to come back into the -- into the environment.

And so --

GLENN: That's a lot of institutional knowledge.

VOICE: Oh, it hurt. I mean, it really hurt.

And in '22, as we started opening back up, we had the new menu that we had. So we lost a lot of people. We put a ton of training into that new menu.

Now we're coming back to open up, guests, any way we can get them. We had patio dining. We were testing a rock garden.

They were going to sit out in the landscape. And I always say that co-ed even made Cracker Barrel start drinking alcohol.

Because that's how -- it was out of COVID, that it was like, how are we figuring out how to drive top line sales and try to get a guest in.

GLENN: Okay. So that is a good example of you don't know any of the story. You think Cracker Barrel has never served alcohol before. Why are you shoving alcohol? That's a cultural. So it's easy to think, you're selling people alcohol now. What other values are you --

VOICE: And it's fair.

GLENN: That one, is at least understandable. Now that I understand the story.

VOICE: Yeah. Exactly. And so as we got into '23, I came out of my office administration role, and came into operations.

And I was leading field operations. And the best way for me to describe it, we were throwing Velcro balls at a wall to see what would stick.

STU: And it's understandable. You know, it's easy to kind of look at the Cracker Barrel situation and get lost at how badly it went.

A lot of these decisions come down to the information they had at the time. Right?

And they're looking at the time as a place that maybe people aren't coming into as much as they would like.

They are trying to -- maybe it's fading a little bit. Maybe some people find it's stale.

They think the situation at Cracker Barrel is not one that they're not necessarily trying to get involved with on a week to week basis, like they used to.

Maybe they had those warm feelings of the past. But they're not going in it anymore. Well, we'll freshen it up. We will do all these new things.

This will be great! And you realize, sometimes, when you're in that moment, you hit a -- you hate a vein. Right?

You're trying to do something positive for the company. And you hit a vein, and everything starts bleeding all over the place.

Let me give you another piece of this interview. Glenn Beck, up in the headquarters of -- of Cracker Barrel.

And somehow, I will give Glenn credit. Not eating throughout the interview.

I kind of thought, when they put food in front of him. He would just be shoveling it down his gullet the entire time.

You wouldn't be able to hear him. It would be like talking with his mouth full.

He got through it, without taking as many bites. Here is Glenn with the CEO of Cracker Barrel.

GLENN: Let's just get this out.

VOICE: Okay.

GLENN: What happened to the choices that were made?

I said on day one of this. I remember when they rolled out new Coke. And I thought, that was the dumbest marketing move, the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

We're taking the original formula and ditching it. And let's start over with a brand that people love.

The day this broke, I said on the air, new Coke!

That's what this is. And it was -- no offense. Stupid!

Just stupid from start to finish.

Can you walk me through how that happened?

VOICE: Yeah. Sure.

Look, our guests have every right to be upset.

GLENN: Yeah. You want to watch this. And I -- you know, what I really want to you watch for is a moment where I said to her, are you surprised you haven't been fired yet.

That spoke volumes. Her answer, and I hope it is captured on camera.

But that answer was the first non, you know, when you're a CEO. You know, I've -- Stu, do you remember when we used to have to do really important interviews.

And our PR people would be like, drill, drill, drill.

No, don't say that. Don't say that. And we would be like, yeah. Whatever.

And when you are in charge of a Fortune 500 company. And you're in the trouble that they're in, you do -- you know, you follow the people that you have hired to make sure crisis management. You don't make any more mistakes.

And so everybody was very, very careful.

They were very honest. But, you know, like that DEI thing.

She didn't really answer the question.

Of course, we want everybody to be welcomed. Yeah. I know. But that's not answering the question.

When I asked her, are you surprised you still have a job, and you haven't been fired yet. Her answer spoke volumes.

Now, the other thing that you need to know, that while she didn't answer me on the DEI thing. And I -- I -- you know, I can't tell you exactly how this happened.

I just know that they knew, that they didn't answer the question.

And somebody has been in touch with my people. And said, hey. You might want to watch the board meeting that is happening.

We can't tell you that anything is going to be happening. But the DEI thing may be solved. At the board meeting. That happened this morning. And they were going to release something at 11:15 today.

We didn't know exactly what it was.

We had -- we had an indication that it might be about DEI.

And what they've done, at first.

Remember, in August. You know, they just deleted the Pride pages. And the DEI pages.

And they just got rid of it all, at Cracker Barrel. That is just hiding who you are. The real problem was, they had a guy who was on the board of directors. Named Gilbert Davila.

And he's just resigned from the board, today!

Okay? They had a meeting with the board, and shareholders and everything else. And they voted on all of these people. And they did not renew him. And so he is -- he has resigned.

Now, his job -- he was a member of the standing board committee.

And his job was to assess the social and political risk to the company's business.

Well, who is he?

Well, he's also the CEO of a company called DMI Consulting.

That's a DEI strategy firm, that's been in business since 2010.

So he's one of the guys. He was the guy who, his job as the CEO -- as the CEO of DMI, is to promote, you know, DEI.

To make sure everybody is living up to the DEI standards. So Robby Starbuck, who is a friend of the program and, you know, great conservatives, who has been responsible for -- you know, getting a lot of these people out of these companies, or at least drawing attention on what these companies are really standing for.

He's been asking trial. What does he do to deserve this seat on the board?

Well, that's it. He owned a DEI consulting and strategy firm. That was pushing DEI and DEI advertising. So what's happened here is I think while she couldn't answer that question at the time, because the board hadn't acted, I think it's -- I think it's not not coincidental that the day the interview with her drops. With us.

Which they've known for a couple of weeks. This is when this interview would drop.

They -- they announced that morning, that seat has been eliminated. DEI is gone from Cracker Barrel. So I think that's really, really good news if you're a fan of Cracker Barrel.

And the things that I saw at Cracker Barrel, I'm -- I'm going to tell you some stuff tomorrow.

I just have to make sure that it's exactly accurate. Because I don't want to cause more problems.

For us!

And I want to make sure that I get it exactly right. But there were some things that I learned in the show prep.

And, you know, studying up for this interview.

That no one was prepared to talk to me on camera about. And always says to me, oh, well, there's something there.

And so we have done even more homework on it. And tomorrow, I will tell you about something that you might have heard about. This guy who owns, what is it?

Steak and Shake?

STU: Yeah. He's a big activist shareholder, isn't he?

Kind of against some of the leadership there at Cracker Barrel. I think I read about that.

GLENN: Correct. Yes. Yes.

And he has an interesting history.

And I want to -- I want to take you through some of that tomorrow.

I think by tomorrow, you're going to understand, what you saw with the DEI vote on the board today. Get that gone. That's gone.

The interview that you'll see tonight with Julie. The CEO. She's not who you think she is.

It doesn't mean she didn't make huge mistakes. She says she makes huge mistakes. But she's not who you think she is.

You may not agree with her or whatever. But it's important you know who she is. And what she said.

And the key tonight is that question: Are you surprised that you haven't been fired yet.

And really, what happened after she answers the question. And she's very uncomfortable. Answers the question.

And then she immediately switches topics. And I'm like, wait. Wait. Wait.

Stop. Stop. Go back. Why are you switching topics here?

Because it was an amazing moment. Is she immediately changes the subject. After she answers. And then she comes back, and she he says a few things. You'll see.

And then I bring it back to her again. And she switches topics again. And I'm like, why are you doing that?

Why are you doing that?

And she said a very interesting answer on all of that.

That is one of the most honest things I think I've ever seen a fortune five company or CEO ever say.

It was really uncomfortable. But really, really honest.

I think once you see this. And then I tell you tomorrow about the -- the board member, on the things that I can verify. I'm not sure what we can verify yet.

But the things that I've heard. And the things I think I can verify tomorrow. You will see that -- that I think they made stupid moves. They have really bad advice from DEI people.

And they were set up.

To some degree.

They were set up.

The company was. Not individuals. The company was set up.

I think it will -- I think you will have every question you needed to know about Cracker Barrel and what happened answered.