GLENN: I just want to do a couple of minutes here on bitcoin because I find it interesting. Stu and I both have very little money in bitcoin. Just enough that you are like, okay. I can walk away from this and not worry about it. So we both have about $6.75 in it.
STU: That's too much for my blood. But I have some.
GLENN: Yeah. So Stu bought about $300 a coin. And it is now -- is it about to cross the 1800 mark?
STU: Yeah, it's right around there. 1800.
GLENN: 1800 per bitcoin.
STU: They're saying a lot of it goes to the --
GLENN: Instability.
STU: In China --
GLENN: Instability. Oh, yeah China.
STU: And instability. It's true. China though. Both of those are true: Instability, and the Chinese market has blown up. They're throwing money into this like crazy. And remember, we haven't even hit a point where there's an actual collapse of an economy. And a lot of people think that if this happens, where currency collapses in this environment, a country may switch to bitcoin as its actual currency.
GLENN: I know.
STU: I mean, if that were to happen, I mean -- God only knows what could happen to this. I have no idea.
GLENN: And at the same time, it could completely collapse and go nowhere.
STU: It could be zero tomorrow, without -- without any doubt at all.
GLENN: Yeah. This is one of those things that, you know -- that you're either going to look like a genius or a dummy.
If you put a lot of money into it, you have a better chance of looking like a dummy. But, you know, this is something that your family could talk about for generations. "Yeah, I know. My great grandfather, he bought bitcoin when it was $300 an ounce." When it was, what? For a coin.
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: When it was what?
But there are some changes going on with that. And I think, you know, when things go unstable, at least until they can get their arms around it. See, this is what happened to gold. Look at bitcoin. This makes no sense. Bitcoin now is more expensive than gold. That doesn't make sense.
STU: Right. No. Of course not.
GLENN: And that's because they do reverse treasuries and all of those games. They shut this down and they play all kinds of games with the manipulation of the price of gold because they know that people see gold as a signal of trouble. And so when they see gold start to fluctuate in big jumps, they freak out.
Gold should probably be closer to 2,000 to 2500. If it wasn't the artificial barriers, it would be at least -- I bet you it would be $2,000. But these artificial barriers keep them down.
STU: And that's what happens -- bitcoin is even more susceptible to that.
GLENN: Oh, yeah. It's not susceptible -- I don't know if anybody is trying to keep it down. But people don't know. And it's not stable. And it could go to zero. Gold will never go to zero. You know what I mean?
STU: Right.
GLENN: But it depends on what happens. Do they -- same with bitcoin. Do they seize it? Do they not seize it? Do they make it illegal for trading in it? I don't know.
STU: Right. That's my biggest concern. My biggest concern, as is, my biggest concern with everything is the government coming in and saying, "You know what, people are doing X, Y, and Z, that we don't like with this currency. Therefore, it will no longer exist."
And the people who love bitcoin say, "Well, they can never do that because it's digital and it goes around the government." And all that's true. Like, it is true -- it would be very difficult for the government outside of shutting the internet down completely to turn off bitcoin.
However, if you make it so that you -- you know, if the government creates a law and somehow it makes it possible that, you know what, you're not allowed to accept bitcoin. No one is allowed to have bitcoin, it's going to chase everybody like me out of it. Because I have no interest in being on the wrong side of the law. I'm not looking to make some weird, you know, currency point here. I just find it generally interesting. And at that point, while, yes, it will still exist in some world, it will no longer, I think have the -- the number of people involved in it that will create the increase in value.
GLENN: Unless it's China. Unless China says, that's our currency. Or that's how we're going. If China does it, then you still have all that money in bitcoin available to China. Your job is to get to China. You know, if you had $10 million in bitcoin --
STU: Right.
GLENN: -- because you bought it -- this is not crazy.
STU: No.
GLENN: Because you bought it today and currency went out and China said, "Oh, by the way, this is our currency." And a few markets were using that as currency, you could see that -- you could see $10 million in bitcoin. Now, get to it, you couldn't do it here in the United States. But if you could get to someplace where it was free, that's -- you know, that is one thing about -- you know, people in the 1930s had to try to smuggle everything out. They were eating diamonds and everything else, to try to smuggle it out. This is all up in your head.
That's different than gold or anything else. You don't have to move around with it. You just have to find a way to access it, which, you know, today is easy. But if you had real global, you know, authoritarianism, that changes. But that changes everything anyway.
STU: Yeah, exactly. At that point, you're beyond --
GLENN: Yeah, there's no -- there's no scenario -- oh, let's see. If Blade Runner comes true. There's no scenario for Blade Runner.
STU: Well, considering there's a sequel coming out very soon.
GLENN: Well, I forgot about that. Yes, I forgot that.
STU: Then I would say yes. Sequel to the documentary Blade Runner 2049.
GLENN: Right. Which looks really good. It looks really good.
STU: It looks kind of interesting.
But that's the thing with this, is the crazy scenario in which bitcoin goes to 10 million, the world is such a crazy place, you almost can't prepare for it.
JEFFY: Right.
STU: The situation in which, you know, let's say Chuck Schumer decides, you know what, people shouldn't be able to have the freedom with their currency, so we're going to ban it, that's not an unrealistic scenario at all to me. And even if the rest of the world continues to use it, if you're an American citizen, you don't want -- like I'm not interested in being on the wrong side of the law. I'm not Jeffy.
GLENN: No, nobody is. Nobody is.
STU: Nobody except Jeffy is interested in that. So the business --
GLENN: No, I meant nobody is like Jeffy.
STU: Nobody is like Jeffy, that's true. But the businesses will stop accepting it.
GLENN: Yeah.
STU: That won't happen anymore. And when that happens, it just becomes irrelevant to the average person in America.
GLENN: Well, same thing could be said for gold or silver and not --
STU: It's true. But gold or silver is so much more established, right? This is something where the average person knows nothing about.
GLENN: Yeah, yeah. The government -- I guarantee you, the government it -- at some point, if it crashes, the government will have to get control of -- of the currency. They're going to have to get control. And so they will say, the only way you can sell is with X, Y, or Z. Then you just have to have the courage to barter. You know, it's one thing to have gold buried in your backyard -- which I would never do --
STU: You just don't want to dig.
GLENN: What? I don't know what you're saying.
You know, it's one thing to have gold buried in your backyard. And then, you know, take it out slyly to your neighbor and say, hey, look. Bury this in your backyard. I need to buy, you know, a chicken. You know, or whatever.
STU: A chicken?
GLENN: Well, that's the only -- let's be honest, guys.
JEFFY: Right. That's right.
GLENN: If you're buying gold like I do -- I don't buy it for the investment. I didn't buy bitcoin for the investment.
I buy it for an insurance policy that the whole freaking world is burning down. So, yes, I will be in the market for a chicken so I can have an egg.
In 2016, Donald Trump shocked the world by defeating Hillary Clinton. Conservatives cheered, believing we’d taken back the reins of our country. But we missed the bigger battle. We failed to recognize the extent of the damage caused by eight years of Barack Obama and decades of progressive entrenchment. The real war isn’t won at the ballot box. It’s being waged against an insidious force embedded deep within our institutions: the administrative state, or the “deep state.”
This isn’t a new problem. America’s founders foresaw it, though they didn’t have a term for “deep state” back in the 1700s. James Madison, in Federalist 48, warned us that combining legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the same hands is “the very definition of tyranny.” Yet today, that’s exactly where we stand. Unelected bureaucrats in agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice hold more power than the officials we vote for. They control the levers of government with impunity, dictating policies and stifling change.
We’ve felt the consequences of this growing tyranny firsthand. During COVID-19, so-called experts ran our lives, crushing civil liberties under the guise of public safety. Our intelligence agencies and justice system turned into weapons of political warfare, targeting a sitting president and his supporters. Meanwhile, actual criminals were given a pass, turning American cities into lawless war zones.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816 that “the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents.” Today, we see Jefferson’s prophecy fulfilled. The deep state exercises unchecked power over our freedoms, and information itself is controlled by the fourth branch of government: the legacy media.
Even when we win elections, the deep state doesn’t concede defeat. It switches to survival mode. Trump’s first term proved this. Despite a historic mandate to dismantle the bureaucracy, the deep state fought back with everything it had: leaks, investigations, court rulings, and obstruction at every turn. And now, with the possibility of Trump returning to office, the deep state is preparing to do it again.
U.S. Rep. Wiley Nickel (D-N.C.) recently boasted about forming a “shadow cabinet” to govern alongside the deep state, regardless of who’s in the White House. Nickel called it “democracy’s insurance policy.” Let’s be clear: This isn’t insurance. It’s sabotage.
They’ll employ a “top down, bottom up, inside out” strategy to overwhelm and collapse any effort to reform the system. From the top, federal judges and shadow officials will block Trump’s every move. Governors in blue states like California and New York are gearing up to resist federal authority. During Trump’s first term, California filed over 100 lawsuits against his administration. Expect more of the same starting January 20.
From the bottom, progressive groups like the American Civil Liberties Union will flood the streets with protesters, much as they did to oppose Trump’s first-term immigration reforms. They’ve refined their tactics since 2016 and are prepared to unleash a wave of civil unrest. These aren’t spontaneous movements; they’re coordinated assaults designed to destabilize the administration.
Finally, from the inside, the deep state will continue its mission of self-preservation. Agencies will drag their feet, leak sensitive information, and undermine policies from within. Their goal is to make everything a chaotic mess, so the heart of their power — the bureaucratic core — remains untouched and grows stronger.
We cannot make the same mistake we made in 2016 — celebrating victory while the deep state plots its next move. Progressives never see themselves as losing. When they’re out of power, they simply shift tactics, pumping more blood into their bureaucratic heart. We may win elections, but the war against the deep state will only intensify. As George Washington warned in his Farewell Address, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force; and force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
This is the fight for the soul of our nation. The founders’ vision of a constitutional republic is under siege. The deep state has shown us its plan: to govern from the shadows, circumventing the will of the people. But now that the shadows have been exposed, we have a choice. Will we accept this silent tyranny, or will we demand accountability and reclaim our nation’s heart?
The battle is just beginning. We can’t afford to lose.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.
The drone issue is getting way out of hand.
Earlier this month, Glenn first reported on the mysterious drones stalking the night sky over New Jersey, but the situation is increasingly concerning as the sightings have escalated. Not only have drones been seen across the Northeast Coast, including over New York City, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, but recently, they have been spotted over the night skies of San Diego and other parts of Southern California.
It doesn't take an expert to identify the potential dangers and risks that dozens of undetectable, unidentified six-foot or larger drones pose to national security. Yet, our government's response has been one of unimaginable incompetence, leaving us to speculate on the origin and intention of these drones and wonder in astonishment at the government's ineptitude. Here are three examples of the government's lackluster response to the mystery drones:
- / Stringer | Getty Images
After several weeks of hubbub, New Jersey Representative, Jeff Van Drew gave an interview on Fox News where he claimed that the drones originated from an Iranian "mothership" off the East Coast of the United States. This theory has since been disproven by satellite images, which show that all Iranian drone carriers are far from U.S. shores. Another theory suggests that drones may be equipped with sensors capable of detecting nuclear material and that they are looking for a nuclear warhead that recently went missing! With these apocalyptic theories gaining traction in the absence of any real answer from our government, one can't help but question the motive behind the silence.
Alex Wong / Staff | Getty Images
In a recent press conference, national security spokesman John Kirby responded to reporters demanding answers about the government's lack of transparency, which has caused increasing public anxiety. He insisted that the drones did not pose a threat and were not assets of a foreign power, such as from Iran or China--even though he is still uncertain about their identity and origin. He also claimed that many of the sightings were simply misidentifications of normal aircraft.
This lackluster answer has only further inflamed national anxieties and raised even more questions. If the government is unsure of the identity of the drones, how do they know if they are a threat or if they aren't foreign assets? If they aren't foreign, does that mean they are U.S. assets? If so, why not just say so?
The Pentagon has also stated that they are leaving it up to local law enforcement to spearhead the investigation after concluding that these drones pose no threat to any military installation. This has left many feeling like the federal government has turned a blind eye to a serious issue that many Americans are very concerned about.
Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images
We are in the closing weeks of the Biden administration, and with the finish line in sight, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg probably figured nothing else could go wrong on his watch—but boy was he wrong. As Secretary of Transportation, Buttigieg is in charge of the FAA, the agency responsible for managing all air traffic across the nation. One would think that mysterious, 6-foot-long, seemingly intractable drones are invisible on radar and flying above major cities would pose a serious threat to the myriad of legal aircraft that traverse our skies. Yet, Buttigieg has been silent on the issue, adding another failure to his resume which includes: malfunctioning airplanes, the train derailment in Ohio, and the Baltimore Key Bridge collapse, just to name a few.
America no longer has a single, shared understanding of justice. Two Americas now exist, each applying justice differently depending on who you are and where you live. One America, ruled by common sense and individual courage, praises heroes who stand up to protect others. The other, driven by political agendas and corrupted institutions, punishes those same heroes for daring to act.
This stark division couldn’t be clearer than in the case of Daniel Penny, the Marine whose trial in New York City this week drew strong reactions from both sides across the divided line of justice.
Penny was on a subway train last year when Jordan Neely — a man suffering from severe mental illness and reportedly high on drugs — began threatening passengers, saying, “I’m going to kill you all.” The fear on that subway car was palpable, but nobody moved. Nobody, that is, until Penny did what needed to be done. He took action to protect innocent lives.
In the America many of us used to believe in, Penny’s response would be heralded as heroic. His actions mirrored the courage of Todd Beamer on Flight 93, who, on September 11, 2001, rallied others with the words, “Let’s roll,” to prevent further tragedy. But in New York, courage doesn’t seem to count anymore. There, the system turns heroes into villains.
Penny subdued Neely using a chokehold, intending only to restrain him, not kill him. Tragically, Neely died. Penny, filled with remorse, told the police he never meant to hurt anyone. Yet, instead of being recognized for protecting others from a clear and present threat, Penny stood trial for criminally negligent homicide.
In Alvin Bragg’s New York, justice bends to ideology. The Manhattan district attorney has made a career of weaponizing the law, selectively prosecuting those who don’t fit his narrative. He’s the same prosecutor who twisted legal precedent to go after Donald Trump on business charges no one had ever faced before. Then, he turned his sights on Daniel Penny.
A jury may have acquitted Penny, but what happened in New York City this week isn’t justice. When the rule of law changes depending on the defendant’s identity or the prosecutor's political motives, we’re no longer living in a free country. We’re living in a state where justice is a game, and ordinary Americans are the pawns.
It’s worth asking: Where were activists like Alvin Bragg when Neely was suffering on the streets? Jordan Neely was a tragic figure — a man with a long history of mental illness and over 40 arrests, including violent assaults. The system failed him long before he stepped onto that subway train. Yet rather than confront that uncomfortable truth, Bragg’s office decided to target the man who stepped in to prevent a tragedy.
This isn’t about justice. It’s about power. It’s about advancing a narrative where race and identity matter more than truth and common sense.
The Daniel Penny case — and others like it — is a wake-up call. We cannot allow corrupt institutions to punish those who act to protect life and liberty. Americans must demand an end to politically driven prosecutions, hold DAs like Alvin Bragg accountable, and stand up for the principle that true justice is blind, consistent, and fair.
If we let this slide, we accept a world in which heroes are treated as criminals and the law is a weapon for ideological warfare. It’s time to choose which America we want to live in.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.
