©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) joined Glenn on radio today with a refreshing and much-needed approach: telling the truth, even if it's bad news. Sanford explained the reason behind the Freedom Caucus endorsing the latest version of Obamacare.
Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.
GLENN: So there was a disturbing news out of the White House yesterday. Yesterday, the Senate came and was briefed at the White House on North Korea. Some of the senators walked out and rolled their eyes. And they were quoted as saying, well, that was interesting. And not in a positive way.
No real word on -- on what happened, what the plan is. And couple that with another story that's coming out from the White House on how the president is briefed. And this is coming from an ally of Donald Trump inside the White House. And I have to tell you, Pat, your blood runs cold when you hear how he's briefed?
PAT: Yeah. Oh, yeah.
GLENN: I mean, this is one of the most disturbing things I've read. We'll get into that.
Also, a guy who is turning out to be somebody that we can really seemingly count on to tell the truth and to stand up to the weasels in Washington is congressman Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I don't believe he's ever been on the show before. We welcome him, beginning right now.
(music)
GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. How are you, sir?
MARK: I'm good. Good to hear your voice.
GLENN: It's good to have you on. Let me just get this uncomfortable moment out from me. Out into the open.
I saw you quickly in the hallway a few years back. And at the time, I was still kind of mad at you for the stuff that, you know, we all went through and you went through. But I have to tell you, you have -- you have taken a situation that could have just destroyed anybody, and you have -- you have a real success and redemption story. And it's really nice to have you on.
MARK: Well, you're very, very kind.
Without going into it, I have been on a journey that involves both the grace of man and the grace of God.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: And it's a pretty good journey.
GLENN: Well, we're glad to have you on.
I want to talk about a couple of things. Because you're a free market Libertarian-minded congressman, which are getting harder and harder to find, at least it seems out here in the wild as we're looking in. You saw the tax plan. And you've heard more now, I'm sure, you know, on the Trumpcare plan. How are you feeling about things?
MARK: You know, I think from a conservative or Libertarian standpoint, a lot of us are concerned about where things go next.
A number of us have sort of stuck our finger in the dike trying to hold back the health care bill based on a belief from a process standpoint. Not being ready for prime time. There's a value to the back and forth that -- that may not be comfortable or fun. But there's a real value to that.
And, frankly, some of the consequent results that would have come with that bill in its original form. And on the tax bill, I think a number of us are concerned about its ramifications with regard to the deficit. I think we need to -- I mean, this is a huge opportunity, the idea of reforming taxes, but we need to do it within the context of not simultaneously blowing up the debt and the deficit, which is no longer talked about in Washington, DC.
GLENN: I think this is so frightening. We don't even have a budget. And in the period we haven't had a budget, we've increased the debt by $10 trillion.
You're right. Nobody is talking about it. And I'm sorry to say that the -- the whole economic principle of cutting taxes only really works when you put it in the context of Calvin Coolidge. You must cut spending first. That's the only thing that's going to give all of us confidence that we can relax and spend a little bit and create jobs.
MARK: You're absolutely right. Because what's really interesting, as we both know, a deficit is simply a delayed tax. You're just stacking the bill. But the idea of saying, we'll cut taxes on one hand. But we'll run bigger deficits on the other. The two wash each other out from an economic standpoint. And so the only-fashioned notion of saying, "Wait a minute. Let's begin with the beginning." It was actually Milton Friedman who once said, "The ultimate measure of government is what it spends." Now, it's not the only measure, but it's a pretty important measure because it's from there that we raise taxes to pay for -- deficits may come as a result between the two.
But what it spends is something that's not looked at in Washington, but I think it's still looked at very closely by folks across this country.
GLENN: Well, I will tell you this, as a small business man, we were talking about this yesterday. And everybody on the team said, "Well, you know, that will increase job creation, et cetera, et cetera." And as the guy who actually pays the bills and runs the business, I said, "Not as much, quite honestly, as you might think because I'm still going to hold an awful lot back from for a rainy day because I know the center won't hold. This is a game." The only ones that are really going to spend it are the ones that I think will take those taxes and pour it into the stock market or whatever they can pour it into, that will have short-term paper guns to make more money, but not to necessarily create more jobs, because they know at some point the music will stop.
MARK: Uh-huh.
We're in the fourth longest economic recovery in the history of our nation right now. And if you believe in, I guess what the statisticians call regression to the mean or what everyday folks call the law of averages, to your point, it won't go on forever. I think, again, it could be very helpful in terms of competitiveness of this country.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: I think it's an incredible opportunity. These opportunities don't roll around often.
And this is the fourth time in the history of our republic that Republicans have held the House, Senate, and White House. But I think we need to do it within the context of making sure we're watching on the spending front. And our budgets become more and more unrealistic as each year goes by. And they get harder and harder to -- to, in essence, bring to ballot over a 10-year time frame.
And it's important that, again, we do talk at some level about this old-fashioned notion of accumulating debt and deficit.
It is amazing right now -- it's almost like the three monkeys about hear no evil, I speak no evil, I think no evil, with regard to debt and deficit. It is something that is just not focused on in DC right now, but I think has real implications in terms of value of the dollar, in terms of future inflation, and ultimately our way of life.
GLENN: So let me ask you a couple of things on, the Freedom Caucus stood against -- and you stood against Obamacare. I'm sorry. Obamacare and Trumpcare.
MARK: Yeah.
GLENN: When Trumpcare was being pushed, you were actually threatened by Team Trump. They said that, if you didn't sign up, they would challenge you in the primary of 2018. And from what I understand, you said, "Go ahead." Now they're saying that the Freedom Caucus is starting to come on board. Is there something that we can actually look at, that is possibly decent?
MARK: Yeah. It's represented in this MacArthur Amendment whether or not that will ultimately get us up and over the top, I'm not sure. But I think that the Freedom Caucus -- well, I know the Freedom Caucus has come on board based on the belief of, one, let's tell the truth to the American public. The truth is we're not repealing the Affordable Care Act. Even though there had been a lot of fanfare when we had a Democratic president and it couldn't go into effect, you know, 60 votes to that effect in the House of Representatives, the bill that made its way all the way to the president, a lot of chest-beating saying, "We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal. We've got to repeal." When push comes to shove, now that we have the chance, they were not willing -- the conference was not willing to bring that bill forward.
And I think that the allies that I deal with in the Freedom Caucus pushed awfully hard on that, saying, wait. This is something that is clear consensus in the House, the Senate. We've done it multiple times. But for whatever reason, that isn't where we were. This other bill moved forward. It wasn't, as I say, ready for prime time. It had a number of different deficiencies that I think would have hurt people who rely on the individual marketplace for their insurance.
And in essence, this MacArthur Amendment was an experiment in federalism. Getting it was called title one. And title one is really the central nervous system of what drives up cost in the individual marketplace and what, frankly, drives the Affordable Care Act. And our fight in --
GLENN: What is title one?
MARK: Title one basically deals with insurance being insurance. So if I said to you, we're going to -- you know, I'm going to give you great insurance. You know, great insurance. You have a 200,000-dollar house. But you've got to buy a million and a half dollar policy. You would say, that ain't great insurance for me. It might be great insurance, but it's not great insurance for me. Great insurance is the insurance that fits for me and for my family and those that I love.
And so what title one gets at is, all the different provisions that prevented insurance from being insurance. Insurance is not being able to buy your homeowner's policy when the house is on fire. You have to buy your homeowner's policy ahead of time to be covered.
And what the Affordable Care Act did is it said, you could wait until your house was on fire to buy a homeowner's policy. So title one was, again, letting -- preventing insurance from being insurance. And it was our belief that if you were ever going to, again, affect the cost of insurance for that small business person out there struggling to make it and struggling with fewer choices and rising premiums, you had to let insurance be insurance.
And so that's what the fight has been about. And what this MacArthur Amendment did was it said, okay. We'll split the baby. And we'll do a federalism experiment. States that want to let insurance be insurance, they can do that. States that don't, won't. If Vermont wants to go to a single-payer system, they may. If South Carolina wants to go to a more market-based system, they may. And that I think is the most you'll be able to get out of the conference. And at that point, the Freedom Caucus folded the cards and said, I guess, as of yesterday to be exact, we'll sign off on that particular measure. And that's where things are right now.
GLENN: Mark -- we're talking to Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina who is showing some real spine and some backbone and standing up for some real true conservative principles. I'd love to talk to you about the future of the party and where you think this is going and the -- and where Trump is going. But one of the pressing issues that I think we need to talk about is North Korea.
What is the temperature in Washington for North Korea? We, for the life of us, cannot come up with a way that this ends without at least a million dead.
MARK: Yeah. You can draw some really bad doomsday scenarios. There was actually a closed door Intel briefing yesterday afternoon on the Hill for members of Congress on this particular topic. And without going into that, I would just say that -- I -- I think we want to be careful about rattling this particular saber --
GLENN: No, I know.
MARK: At this point, North Korea does not have the capacity to bring harm to domestic US. And I think we need to put things within that particular framework as we look at and access threat.
GLENN: Do you believe this administration is looking at it like that?
MARK: I -- I think that they are most worried about what might happen there. And I think that they're thinking about preemptive -- preemptive steps to prevent something from happening.
GLENN: That doesn't sound good.
What is -- with everything, Mark, that is going on, the economy -- I have a woman on who was inside the Dallas fed. She wrote a great book. I don't know if you've seen it, called Fed Up. She was in Wall Street. And then she was one of the chief researchers for the head of the Dallas fed here in -- and saw, you know, 2008 coming a mile away. And she was laughed at until it happened. And then she was promoted.
And what she sees coming now is an absolute disaster financially. With that -- with the world on the edge, with -- with Russia and with a press that is no longer trusted, a government that is no longer trusted, what -- what keeps you up at night? And what keeps you optimistic?
MARK: What keeps me up at night is exactly -- I will make it a point to find this book Fed Up. It's fascinating.
But, you know, I would just presuppose that her philosophical alignment is to the right.
GLENN: Yes.
MARK: But whether you're right or left on this issue -- I mean, it was interesting that Erskine Bowles, who was, you know, Clinton's former chief of staff at the time of the Bowles/Simpson commission, remarked that, you know, look, we're looking at the most predictable financial crisis in the history of man.
If you think about Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman and joint of chief, his observation was -- when asked, what's the biggest threat to the United States? Not the Chinese. Excuse me -- not the Chinese, not the Taliban. But his answer was the American debt.
And so whether it's somebody who is a firsthand participant in the way that the fed works, with the right position, somebody from a military position, somebody from the left, the thing that we're not talking about right now is indeed the build-up of the debt. There's an interesting book if you have insomnia called At This Time, It's Different.
GLENN: Oh, yeah.
MARK: And it was written by a professor from Harvard and a professor from Maryland, writer, and wrote often. Some of their methodologies have been questioned. But their largest premise is accurate. And they look at the last 800 years of financial history, as it relates to governments, and what they found is that in every instance, civilization has got to a tipping point where -- and they had to decide, do we go back to what made us competitive and perhaps a world power in the first place, or do we stay on this happy, but ultimately unsustainable cycle of upward government spending and consumption? And nine times out of ten, they chose the easy path. They said, well, this time it's different. Of course, it never was. Gravity always works. And it was the seeds of that civilization's undoing.
And so the thing that keeps me up at night is the way in which there's not a focus on the implications of the debt and the deficit for every working American.
GLENN: So I will tell you, I am working on a book based on history, on that very thing.
MARK: Hmm.
GLENN: And I will tell you that -- I found it very hard to stay optimistic once you know history. But I have found what keeps me -- helps me back to sleep at night, what have you found that puts you back to sleep at night?
MARK: Engagement. You know, I think that people aren't dumb. At times in politics, we can fuse -- and I think even the president -- I say this most respectfully confuses -- they think it's about us. It's not about us. We're simply receptacles for people's ideas and ideals and the advancement of those ideas. And I would say that this election back in November was less about Donald Trump than it was about people's absolute mind-numbing frustration with the way that Washington was working for them.
GLENN: Yes.
MARK: And so if we just simply separate ourselves just a touch -- it's not about me. It's about these ideas that people are ginned up on.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: What I will say is that we all ought -- right now, you walk into a restaurant, many times it used to be the sports channel that was up.
GLENN: Yeah.
MARK: Nowadays it's a news channel because people are focused on politics. And I think to that degree, engagement is exciting.
GLENN: Yeah. Congressman Mark Sanford from South Carolina. Thank you very much. And, by the way, thank you for holding out for Nikki Haley. If we wouldn't have had you, we wouldn't have had her. She's doing a great job in the UN. But thank you for everything. We'll talk again soon.
MARK: Looking forward to it.
GLENN: Congressman Mark Sanford.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
