Shakespeare: Too White for Ivy League Students

The outspoken and fantastically fierce Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program today, Tuesday, December 20.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 3 for answers to these questions:

• Will consumers ditch Cheetos for healthy snacks?

• Would you eat a PepsiCo quinoa or spinach dip at a party?

• Was political correctness given its last rights on November 8th?

• Why does diversity exclude white people?

• Are black lesbian poets more diverse that white male playwrights?

• Can tweets cause seizures?

• Is assault via the internet a federal crime if it crosses state lines?

• Have people killed in the name of Black Lives Matter?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

DAVID: Thanks for staying with the Glenn Beck Program. You're going to think this story came out of the Onion, you know, that satirical newspaper. But actually, this comes out of the Wall Street Journal.

Did you know that the chief executive of Frito-Lay has vowed to turn the maker of Fritos, Cheetos, and potato chips, and Pepsi into a health juggernaut? I'm not kidding.

This story here says: But while consumers say they all want to eat healthy, often all they really want are potato chips.

It goes on to say: But buoyed by less-healthy snack brands such as Doritos chips and Cheetos Puffs, PepsiCo's sales and volumes are on the rise and its profit margins have expanded in 15 quarters straight. Selling junk food. Yeah, that's what people want from Frito-Lay. They don't want health food.

If I want eat healthy, I'm not going to -- if I want to eat healthy, I'm not going to buy Frito-Lay products. I know where the produce section is in the store.

So it goes on to say that these are hard chews for big food companies. Taste is the biggest factor in snack purchased.

No kidding. Salt. That's what they want to taste.

So it says here: When people get together, they have snacks like potato chips and pretzels. They don't all sit around and snack on granola bars.

It says: Norman Deschamps' head market researcher Packaged Facts.

It's a lot easier for a food behemoth like PepsiCo to generate revenue by tweaking just the Lay's brand of potato chips, the world's top selling food brand, than to start from scratch with quinoa or spinach.

It says: The world's biggest food companies have been trying to wrap up healthier offerings for years, but consumers haven't given up their love for all things sweet and salty.

Do you think you'd have to pay a researcher to tell you that? This is fascinating.

If I was a shareholder, Frito-Lay, I wouldn't be happy about this. I'd say, keep selling the junk food. You know, McDonald's tried this.

McDonald's, hamburgers and fries, that's what people want when they go to McDonald's. But we've turned into the nanny state. Where government -- the federal government and the state government -- remember New York with Mayor Bloomberg and his elimination of the Big Gulp sodas to try to get people to eat and drink in a more healthy fashion? The government -- the federal government steps in and puts all these requirements on the food makers. Now they have to list all of the ingredients and all of the caloric intake and how much sodium and fat and carbohydrates. I never look at the wrapper at that crap when I go to eat it. If I'm eating a Baby Ruth or a Butterfinger, I just rip the package open and start eating it. I don't care what the ingredients are. I know what it is. It's a candy bar. It's sugar covered with chocolate. It tastes good.

I know where to find cucumbers and carrots. So we -- you know, you look at the stuff here from McDonald's. You know, they try to get into the healthy food eating. Remember that? They had this healthy menu section in their restaurants. It bombed.

You know, there's some people that went in there and wanted a salad. I wouldn't go to McDonald's to order a salad. You know what people want when they go to McDonald's? Grease!

Because it tastes good. French fries, cooked in oil. Hamburgers, which are -- they're Quarter Pounders with cheese. Now it's a double Quarter Pounder with extra cheese. And now they put bacon on it. That's what people want from McDonald's.

So McDonald's abandoned that healthy menu. You know why? They were losing money off of it. They realized -- they came to the realization, which they didn't have to pay some marketing research guy or woman this. They could have just asked me. How do you think this is going to work? We're going to offer a healthy menu at McDonald's. I'd say, "Are you guys nuts? Do your stockholders know this?" Do you know what people want from you, McDonald's? Quarter Pounders with cheese, french fries, and shakes. That's what they want. They don't want wraps, salad wraps. You know, some people eat that. They don't go to -- if you're a healthy eater, do you go to McDonald's to get your health food? Don't you go to Whole Foods or one of these other places that, you know, has a little healthier menu? Who -- what person that wants to focus on healthy eating steps foot in a McDonald's? What, so they can order a shake and fries with their healthy wrap?

I mean, this stuff is insane. It really is.

And this goes kind of in line with this other thing I came across here from The Daily Signal. Ivy League students tear down Shakespeare portrait in the name of diversity. That's how crazy this world has become -- actually this country, with this political correctness, I hope on November 8th of this year was given its last rights. I really do. It's going to take some time.

It says here: Students at the University of Pennsylvania have removed a portrait of William Shakespeare and replaced it with a picture of a black lesbian poet for the sake of having greater diversity.

The large Shakespeare portrait had resided near a staircase in Fisher Bennett Hall for years until a gaggle of activist students removed it and placed it in the office of the English department head. In its place, they taped up a photograph of Audre Lorde. I guess she's the black lesbian poet. Never heard of her.

The portrait won't be moved back, according to a statement from the English department head because a white male Shakespeare didn't embody the value of diversity.

To which I would ask, why not? If you listened to the program yesterday, you heard me ask -- or say that, you know, a lot of these -- these liberal mainstream media that were picking on -- picking apart Donald Trump's cabinet nominees as being too white -- and I said, "Somebody needs to ask these people: What do you got against white people?" So the diversity has to be to the exclusion of whites. You can't have whites, blacks, Hispanics. It can only be blacks, Hispanics, lesbians, transgenders, Muslims, but it can't include whites?

So this -- this department head said: Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department.

So that doesn't include Shakespeare? He can't be a part of the inclusiveness -- their inclusive mission? Shakespeare can't be a part of the diversity? It can only be a black lesbian poet?

This is part of that totalitarianism on college campuses. The left knows better than anybody else, control the language, you control the narrative.

It's Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. We have to take a break. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. Merry Christmas from your host today, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Here's another one that you think you would find in the Onion. This Newsweek writer claims assault by tweet from The Daily Caller.

Newsweek senior writer Kurt Eichenwald claimed Friday he was assaulted by a tweet that caused a seizure. Now, the seizure part isn't funny. But assaulted by a tweet. My God, would my Twitter handle be in trouble.

It all started with a tweet Thursday from Eichenwald's account that said @Jew_Goldstein to his wife: You caused a seizure -- I'm sorry -- this is his wife: You caused a seizure. I have your information. I've called the police to report the assault.

That's why I said you would think this was out of the Onion. This guy would call the police because someone sent him a tweet that he says caused his wife to have a seizure.

So it says the Twitter user Jew_Goldstein had sent a gif. G-I-F. An animated video of changing colors with text that said, "You deserve a seizure." The account has been suspended by Twitter.

Newsweek told The Daily Caller they could confirm that Eichenwald's wife, what she said was true. Oh, yeah, that means -- if Newsweek said it, then that's confirmation -- that's enough confirmation for them, I guess. It's not enough confirmation for me.

Eichenwald himself went back on Twitter Friday to say he's taking a hiatus from the social media site as he works with law enforcement to bring this guy to justice.

(chuckling)

You've got to be kidding me, that the police would even respond and spend time on -- I wonder what police agency this is. It doesn't say here.

The Newsweek writer also suggested that the FBI might get involved.

(laughter)

No, this is not from the Onion, folks. This is from TheDailyCaller.com.

So he wrote -- and this is this Eichenwald -- at this point, the police are attempting to determine if this is a federal crime because it appears to be crossing state lines.

(laughter)

The FBI did not respond to an inquiry about whether assault via internet gif is a federal crime.

Speaking to that, let's talk about fake news. Unbelievable.

And I want to talk about this Russian hacking -- all this uproar over Russian hacking and how the Russians were to blame for defeating Mrs. Bill Clinton and the Democrats. It was the Russians that led people in the swing states, including Wisconsin and now Michigan, that hadn't gone Republican for several decades -- and Pennsylvania, how it was the Russians -- I mean, I live in Wisconsin, right?

I voted for Donald Trump. Supported Donald Trump. What these stories suggest is that I was going to vote for somebody else. And I said, "Well, you know, since the Russians have hacked, I guess I'll go vote for somebody else. I guess I'll vote for Donald Trump." I mean, this is insane.

But this is what they've glommed on to. Remember, they started with the, it was James Comey's fault. That's why she lost. Then it was fake news. And now it's the Russian hacking.

And since not much is going on in the political world, most of the media is content to just report on this, this Russian hacking. And I'm not here to suggest. Because I don't know. I'm not hear to suggest that Russia doesn't try to hack into databases. They don't try to get an edge. The Americans do the same thing. But to say this caused Donald Trump to get elected is insane.

I mean, I'm looking at this piece here from Rasmussen. And it says: The New York Times story titled Russian Hackers acted to aid Trump in election, is based on entirely, what else? Unnamed sources, including political appointees of current President Barack Obama.

Play that first clip for us, please.

OBAMA: But the larger point I want to emphasize here is that there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even -- you could even rig America's elections. In part, because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that that has happened in the past or that there are instances in which that will happen this time.

And so I'd advise Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes. And if you got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government.

DAVID: Now, that was before November 8th. That was President Obama. And that was when the Democrats were claiming at the time that Podesta's emails were hacked. They may have been. I don't know that the Russians did it. You heard the president.

He says it's impossible, with all the intricacies involved for them to -- not to get into these systems, but to swing an election. Then he accused Trump of whining. And he said -- this was before November 8th. If Trump gets more votes, Trump wins the election -- he apparently won the popular vote because of California. But if Trump wins the election, then she should graciously concede and let's move on. Well, that didn't happen.

So then we have all this stuff about the Russian hackers. There's no evidence at this point.

Now, post election, Obama has ordered an investigation into Russian hacking. Obama says, "We need to take action, and we will." Democrats are -- are saying that Americans believing fake news is sowing confusion.

This is incredible. The electoral college came back uneventful, no drama yesterday. I believe Trump ended up with 304, it might have been 305 electoral votes. Only two defectors in Texas, out of 36. And then he got one in Maine. I don't know if Maine doles theirs out proportionally or not. But one defector went for Trump -- I shouldn't say defector. He got one electoral vote in Maine. And Mrs. Bill Clinton got the other two. So he got 300 electoral votes. And the liberal mainstream media is saying, "Well, that's not a mandate. He better move cautiously."

I beg to differ. I like the fact that Paul Ryan, speaker of the house, has suggested that the Republicans need to go big on policy issues and policy recommendations. Don't squander this. You don't know how long it's going to last. They control the Senate, albeit, not necessarily filibuster proof. But they control the House of Representatives, and they control the White House.

I don't want to hear anymore complaining from the Republicans that they can't get anything done because they don't have any power. You strike while the iron is hot. You may not have the super majority for too long. The midterms are coming up in two short years. Often time, that favors the party out of power. So if we end up with a bifurcated Congress, where let's say the Dems win back the Senate -- I don't think they will, but who knows -- then we'll have gridlock. So they have to strike while the iron's hot. And they better.

We got to take a break. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up in the show is David French. We're going to talk about Black Lives Matter.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. In for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Let's go in this direction: I have on the line David French. David French is a staff writer at National Review. He's an attorney. Concentrates his practice on constitutional law, the law of armed conflict. He's a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And he recently penned an article in National Review, and it had to do with Black Lives Matter and this love affair with the late Fidel Castro. And I want to talk to him about that.

David, thanks so much for joining me today.

FRENCH: Thanks so much for having me, I appreciate it.

DAVID: Why don't you get right into it, this sickening essay from Black Lives Matter in terms of making Fidel Castro into some -- a guy that's to be admired?

FRENCH: Yeah, it's really amazing. Right after Fidel Castro died, Black Lives Matter published a piece, an essay -- I mean, you really have to read it to believe it. But it begins with: We're feeling many things as we awaken to a world without Fidel Castro. And it's a really remarkable essay that laments his death, talks about his revolutionary street cred, and then essentially -- and then thanks him for sheltering some of the most vicious cop killers in American history.

There were black revolutionaries who killed police officers, three of them, for example, hijacked a jet after they killed a police officer at knife point, sent the jet to Cuba, and Fidel Castro gave them sanctuary. And so what we're talking about here is a man who not only had a human rights effort, where over a million people left his own island to escape and where he ruthlessly suppressed dissent, he actually harbored in the United States -- I mean, harbored in Cuba cop killers, and Black Lives Matter was praising him for that.

DAVID: You know, one of those cop killers is Assata Shakur, who was -- Werner Foerster, I think was the New Jersey state trooper that she killed or she was involved in the killing. He had pulled over these individuals, this car for a traffic violation. And in part, she got out of the car. She was a passenger in the rear seat. And went over. Werner Foerster had been wounded. So he laid in the street. She ran over to him, grabbed his firearm, and shot him multiple times as he laid on the ground there. She was caught. She was convicted. She was sent to prison in the state of New Jersey. I think it was New Jersey, yeah.

And she escaped. There was an unbelievable escape. Some people came in. They took many of the prison guards hostage. They got her out. She fled to Cuba. She resides in Cuba to this day. And she's one of the ones that I have pleaded with -- with no success, to the Eric Trump-led attorney -- United States Department of Justice to get her back after President Obama normalized relations with Cuba. I said, "Okay. Something good can come of this normalization of relations with Cuba. Let's get those cop killers back here." And, of course, they're not interested in that.

But I have said -- and I have been very vocal about it, I have labeled Black Lives Matter as a hateful ideology. They foster division, as you write in your story here. They support an anti-cop rhetoric, cop hatred. And there are people who have killed law enforcement officers in the name -- name of -- of Black Lives Matter. Why do you think -- other than the obvious, you know, that they look at Cuba and they look atrophied he will Castro, that murderous dictator, and they idolize somebody like that.

FRENCH: Well, you know, they look at everything in the United States through one lens and one lens only, and that's race. And so Fidel Castro, as part of his anti-American campaign, decades-long anti-American campaign was constantly trying to create greater racial tension in the United States.

And one of the ways that he did that was by -- was by backing and explicitly supporting, both rhetorically and providing, you know, a home for people who are a part of organizations like the Black Panthers or the Black Liberation Army.

And so these guys -- these Black Lives Matter activists who are really the spiritual descendents, so to speak, of the Black Panthers, for example. They look at that history. And because they're only looking at it through the lens of race and race only, they don't realize -- or at least don't care, the extent to which Fidel Castro was cynically using American race tensions to advance its own agenda.

I mean, this is a guy who in Cuba discriminated against black Cubans in ways that were grotesque. And he was only exploiting racial divisions in the United States for his own communist means.

So he wasn't -- he wasn't some sort of social justice warrior. He was a communist dictator thug, but these people refused to see it.

DAVID: You know, part of the problem with this hateful ideology is these people who wrap their arms around it, people who have been invited to the White House, I should add, numerous times to hold counsel with the president of the United States, they don't know their history. They don't know the history here.

It's kind of like Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, you know, taking a knee. Sitting down initially and then taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem. He's another one that showed up at a post-game conference. You know, you do the thing after the game. He shows up with a T-shirt with a picture of Fidel Castro on it. And I look -- first thing I think when I see this: These people don't know their history. They don't know what they're talking about.

But when I look at Black Lives Matter and I look at how this ugly chapter and what it's been and what it's meant for the American law enforcement officer -- and like I said, a couple minutes ago, you know, it's led to the death -- people have killed in the name of Black Lives Matter. But this has also caused police in ghetto communities throughout the United States to not be as assertive as they need to be, to not engage in the kind of discretionary policing, quality of life enforcement, some people call it, and it has led to an increase of crime.

You look at the city of Chicago -- and I talked about it on the program yesterday. They're up to like 753 murders in the city of Chicago in 2016 alone, compared to about 495 last year. And last year's total outpaced the year before that. And in the city of Chicago, you have over 3,000 people who have been hit by gunfire in non-fatal shootings.

So you look at that sting across America, and then these people have the nerve, the audacity, to run around saying black lives matter. But you look at stuff like that, where are they? They're nowhere to be found.

Black people -- good law-abiding black people in many cases, children, you have seniors living in fear in these ghetto communities. And where are they? You know, they're nowhere to be found. And that's the phoniness of, you know, their mantra, the phoniness of their claim, their slogan, if you will. Black Lives Matter. What are your thoughts on that?

FRENCH: Yeah, it's one of the most clever marketing campaigns in history, that's contradicted by then about everything that the group actually stands for.

For example, on its website, it says flatout that they want to destroy the nuclear -- the Western prescribed nuclear family. Well, the destruction of the family is one of the main drivers of social conflict, not just in black communities, but in American communities at large.

And when it comes to -- to -- to violence, what you are seeing about the change in policing tactics, which are changes in tactics that Black Lives Matter has been pushing for, there's mathematical -- there's strong mathematical correlation.

If you look in -- if you look in Chicago, there's been a decrease in the number of stops. There's been a decrease in the number of -- consequently, decrease in the number of drug confiscations -- I mean, gun confiscations. A decrease in the number of arrests. And a corresponding dramatic increase in the number of murders. I mean, all of this is -- is very well documented. And so, you know, if you're talking about what -- what is it that saves black lives? Well, one of the key things that helped end the murder crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, was very aggressive policing. And also with -- and this is something that a lot of people don't realize, with the active and enthusiastic participation of black communities in the US. Everything from pastors to politicians, the congressional black caucuses out front in the late '80s and early '90s in trying to have -- in moving towards tougher policing. There was -- there were African-American lawmakers in states around the country seeking relief from this crime epidemic. And so it was the black community that really rallied in the late '80s and early '90s. And now along comes Black Lives Matter. As you said, they don't know their history. And they're trying to undo a lot of the reforms that the black community had led America in advocating for generations -- a generation ago, that has since saved countless lives. So I'm not sure, you know, which community they purport to be speaking to.

I think they're speaking for a media community that loves them a great deal. And like I said, they have a very clever marketing slogan. I mean, of course, everyone believes that black lives matter. But what's behind that slogan is a very, very radical agenda that is actually costing lives.

DAVID: Right. And, really, in essence though, black lives do not matter, at least to these individuals. They matter to you. They matter to me. Matter to a lot of people, but not these individuals. They put out some manifesto not too long ago where some of the tenets were, you know, railing against Israel for the treatment of the Palestinians. Railing against -- or demanding more money for global warming studies.

And when I read this manifesto, I said: You know what, black people do not care about global warming. They do not care about what's going on in Israel. Not that we shouldn't care about what's going on in Israel. We do. But I said, here's what black people care about: They care about jobs. They care about better schools for their kids to be able to go to. And they care about safer communities.

David, I want to thank you for joining us. Keep up the good work and Merry Christmas.

FRENCH: Thanks so much for having me. And Merry Christmas to you too.

DAVID: Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program, and we have to take a break.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. Final segment. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. This has been fun. Two straight days. This was new for me. I've done fill-in radio. I've told you that before. I've been a guest host nationally on some programs, as well as locally back home. But I've never done successive days.

I'll tell you, I got a new admiration, not that I didn't before, but for people who do this for a living, who are good at this, people like Glenn and others. He comes in -- he's got to do this five days and no weekends off, of doing other things. Putting these programs together takes a lot.

Again, I want to thank the people on the set here, the producers and everybody involved in the production of this program. You guys have been great. You really have provided -- you guys with the training wheels for the -- you know, in case the bicycle got a little wobbly, I'd have the training wheels to rely on. You guys are what makes the show go. I don't know if Glenn tells you that enough, but you do. He probably does. But thanks for everything that you've done. It's been great.

And, you know, it's kind of interesting -- I want to close with this. And, again, this is kind of like the gift that keeps on giving.

To rehabilitate the Democratic Party, Obama plans to coach young talent.

So Obama to the rescue again. He spent eight years destroying this republic, and now he wants to coach new talent.

He says here: What I'm interested in is just developing a whole new generation of talent, Obama told NPR's Steve Inskeep in an interview on Morning Edition.

There's such incredible young people, who not only worked on my campaign, but I've seen in advocacy groups.

You know, he's the community organizer.

I've -- I've seen passionate about issues like climate change or conservation or criminal justice reform, you know, campaigns too for a livable wage and health insurance, and make sure that whatever resources, credibility, and spotlight that I can bring to help raise them up, that's what I want to do. That's something I think I can do well.

Because, you know, he excels at everything. There's nothing that Barack Obama can't do. You know, there's no short suits in his talent box. At least that's what he thinks.

I hope that he's serious about this because what he'll end up doing is he will coach a generation of young starry-eyed liberals in the area of community organizing in this Democrat Party that is in free fall, will continue to flounder. So what I always tell people when they point out what's wrong with the Democrat Party -- I'm talking people on the right -- I say, "Be quiet. Leave them alone." I say, "They're doing fine. They will figure this out on their own." So we'll see what happens there.

Again, it's been a pleasure to be with you these last two days. I want everybody to have a very Merry Christmas, a blessed Christmas. A Happy New Year. And remember, Donald Trump is going need to all of us to provide that pushback against the people that want to see him fail. And he's going need to our energy as well in order to make America great again. Put the country first. Leave the other stuff out of it and everybody will be fine. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program. David Clarke. Thank you very much.

Featured Image: The first four folios of William Shakespeare's work during an unveiling for auction at Christie's King Street on April 19, 2016 in London, England. The preview of the sale commemorates 400 years since the death of Shakespeare (1564-1616). The auction will be led by an unrecorded copy of the first folio, the first collected edition of Shakespeare's plays, which contains 36 plays and is estimated at £800,000-£1.2 million.The folios will go on public display in London from 20 to 28 April and then later being put up in a four lot auction on 25 May 2016. The sale is expected to reach in excess of £1.3 million (Photo by Chris Ratcliffe/Getty Images)

Fort Knox exposed: Is America's gold MISSING?

Christopher Furlong / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump promised that we would get a peek inside Fort Knox, but are we ready for what we might find?

In this new era of radical transparency, the possibility that the Deep State's darkest secrets could be exposed has many desperate for answers to old questions. Recently, Glenn has zeroed in on gold, specifically America's gold reserves, which are supposed to be locked away inside the vaults of Fort Knox. According to the government, there are 147.3 million ounces of gold stored within several small secured rooms that are themselves locked behind a massive 22 ton vault door, but the truth is that no one has officially seen this gold since 1953. An audit is long overdue, and President Trump has already shown interest in the idea.

America's gold reserve has been surrounded by suspicion for the better part of a hundred years. It all started in 1933, when FDR effectivelynationalized the United States's private gold stores, forcing Americans to sell their gold to the government. This gold was melted down, forged into bars, and stored in the newly constructed U.S. Bullion Depository building at Fort Knox. By 1941, Fort Knox had held 649.6 million ounces of gold—which, you may have noticed, was 502.3 million ounces more than today. We'll come back to that.

By 1944, World War II was ending, and the Allies began planning how to rebuild Europe. The U.N. held a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the USD was established as the world's reserve currency. This meant that any country (though not U.S. citizens) could exchange the USD for gold at the fixed rate of $35 per ounce. Already, you can see where our gold might have gone.

Jump to the 1960s, where Lyndon B. Johnson was busy digging America into a massive debt hole. Between the Vietnam War and Johnson's "Great Society" project, the U.S. was bleeding cash and printing money to keep up. But now Fort Knox no longer held enough physical gold to cover the $35 an ounce rate promised by the Bretton Woods agreement. France took notice of this weakness and began to redeem hundreds of millions of dollars. In the 70s Nixon staunched this gushing wound by halting foreign nations from redeeming dollars for gold, but this had the adverse effect of ending the gold standard.

This brings us to the present, where inflation is through the roof, no one knows how much gold is actually inside Fort Knox, and someone in America has been buying a LOT of gold. Who is buying this gold? Where is it going and for what purpose? Glenn has a few ideas, and one of them is MUCH better than the other:

The path back to gold

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

One possibility is that all of this gold that has been flooding into America is in preparation for a shift back to a gold-backed, or partial-gold-backed system. The influx of gold corresponds with a comment recently made by Trump's new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, who said he was going to:

“Monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people.”

Glenn pointed out that per a 1972 law, the gold in Fort Knox is currently set at a fixed value of $42 an ounce. At the time of this writing, gold was valued at $2,912.09 an ounce, which is more than a 6,800 percent increase. If the U.S. stockpile was revalued to reflect current market prices, it could be used to stabilize the dollar. This could even mean a full, or partial return to the gold standard, depending on the amount of gold currently being imported.

Empty coffers—you will own nothing

Raymond Boyd / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, Glenn suspects there is another, darker purpose behind the recent gold hubbub.

As mentioned before, the last realaudit of Fort Knox was done under President Eisenhower, in 1953. While the audit passed, a report from the Secretary of the Treasury revealed that a mere 13.6 percent was checked. For the better part of a century, we've had no idea how much gold is present under Fort Knox. After the gold hemorrhage in the 60s, many were suspicious of the status of our gold supply. In the 80s, a wealthy businessman named Edward Durell released over a decade's worth of research that led him to conclude that Fort Knox was all but empty. In short, he claimed that the Federal Reserve had siphoned off all the gold and sold it to Europe.

What would it mean if America's coffers are empty? According to a post by X user Matt Smith that Glenn shared, empty coffers combined with an influx of foreign gold could represent the beginning of a new, controlled economy. We couldstill be headed towards a future where you'll ownnothing.

Glenn: The most important warning of your lifetime—AI is coming for you

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Artificial intelligence isn’t coming. It’s here. The future we once speculated about is no longer science fiction—it’s reality. Every aspect of our lives, from how we work to how we think, is about to change forever. And if you’re not ready for it, you’re already behind. This isn’t just another technological leap. This is the biggest shift humanity has ever faced.

The last call before the singularity

I've been ringing this bell for 30 years. Thirty years warning you about what’s coming. And now, here we are. This isn’t a drill. This isn’t some distant future. It’s happening now. If you don’t understand what’s at stake, you need to wake up—because we have officially crossed the event horizon of artificial intelligence.

What’s an event horizon? It’s the edge of a black hole—the point where you can’t escape, no matter how hard you try. AI is that black hole. The current is too strong. The waterfall is too close. If you haven’t been paying attention, you need to start right now. Because once we reach Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), there is no turning back.

You’ve heard me talk about this for decades. AI isn’t just a fancy Siri. It isn’t just ChatGPT. We are on the verge of machines that will outthink every human who has ever lived—combined. ASI won’t just process information—it will anticipate, decide, and act faster than any of us can comprehend. It will change everything about our world, about our lives.

And yet, the conversation around AI has been wrong. People think the real dangers are coming later—some distant dystopian nightmare. But we are already in it. We’ve passed the point where AI is just a tool. It’s becoming the master. And the people who don’t learn to use it now—who don’t understand it, who don’t prepare for it—are going to be swallowed whole.

I know what some of you are thinking: "Glenn, you’ve spent years warning us about AI, about how dangerous it is. And now you’re telling us to embrace it?" Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Because if you don’t use this tool—if you don’t learn to master it—then you will be at its mercy.

This is not an option anymore. This is survival.

How you must prepare—today

I need you to take AI seriously—right now. Not next year, not five years from now. This weekend.

Here’s what I want you to do: Open up one of these AI tools—Grok 3, ChatGPT, anything advanced—and start using it. If you’re a CEO, have it analyze your competitors. If you’re an artist, let it critique your work. If you’re a stay-at-home parent, have it optimize your budget. Ask it questions. Push it to its limits. Learn what it can do—because if you don’t, you will be left behind.

Let me be crystal clear: AI is not your friend. It’s not your partner. It’s not something to trust. AI is a shovel—an extremely powerful shovel, but still just a tool. And if you don’t understand that, you’re in trouble.

We’ve already seen what happens when we surrender to technology without thinking. Social media rewired our brains. Smartphones reshaped our culture. AI will do all that—and more. If you don’t take control now, AI will control you.

Ask yourself: When AI makes decisions for you—when it anticipates your needs before you even know them—at what point do you stop being the one in charge? At what point does AI stop being a tool and start being your master?

And that’s not even the worst of it. The next step—transhumanism—is coming. It will start with good intentions. Elon Musk is already developing implants to help people walk again. And that’s great. But where does it stop? What happens when people start “upgrading” themselves? What happens when people choose to merge with AI?

I know my answer. I won’t cross that line. But you’re going to have to decide for yourself. And if you don’t start preparing now, that decision will be made for you.


The final warning—act now or be left behind

I need you to hear me. This is not optional. This is not something you can ignore. AI is here. And if you don’t act now, you will be lost.

The next 18 months will change everything. People who don’t prepare—who don’t learn to use AI—will be scrambling to catch up. And they won’t catch up. The gap will be too wide. You’ll either be leading, or you’ll be swallowed whole.

So start this weekend. Learn it. Test it. Push it. Master it. Because the people who don’t? They will be the tools.

The decision is yours. But time is running out.

The coming AI economy and the collapse of traditional jobs

Think back to past technological revolutions. The industrial revolution put countless blacksmiths, carriage makers, and farmhands out of business. The internet wiped out entire industries, from travel agencies to brick-and-mortar retail. AI is bigger than all of those combined. This isn’t just about job automation—it’s about job obliteration.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers—people who thought their jobs were untouchable—will find themselves replaced by AI. A machine that can diagnose disease with greater accuracy, draft legal documents in seconds, or design infrastructure faster than an entire team of engineers will be cheaper, faster, and better than human labor. If you’re not preparing for that reality, you’re already falling behind.

What does this mean for you? It means constant adaptation. Every three to five years, you will need to redefine your role, retrain, and retool. The only people who survive this AI revolution will be the ones who understand its capabilities and learn to work with it, not against it.

The moral dilemma: When do you stop being human?

The real danger of AI isn’t just economic—it’s existential. When AI merges with humans, we will face an unprecedented question: At what point do we stop being human?

Think about it. If you implant a neural chip that gives you access to the entire internet in your mind, are you still the same person? If your thoughts are intertwined with AI-generated responses, where do you end and AI begins? This is the future we are hurtling toward, and few people are even asking the right questions.

I’m asking them now. And you should be too. Because that line—between human and machine—is coming fast. You need to decide now where you stand. Because once we cross it, there is no going back.

Final thoughts: Be a leader, not a follower

AI isn’t a passing trend. It’s not a gadget or a convenience. It is the most powerful force humanity has ever created. And if you don’t take the time to understand it now, you will be at its mercy.

This is the defining moment of our time. Will you be a master of AI? Or will you be mastered by it? The choice is yours. But if you wait too long, you won’t have a choice at all.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

  • 45th in GDP Per Capita
  • 44th in Employment
  • 42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.