RADIOOctober 27, 2022

Why a HUGE ‘migration’ of gold to Asia should WORRY YOU

Bloomberg recently published a piece called, ‘The Gold Market’s Great Migration Sends Bullion Rushing East.’ The article notes that China has imported 160 TONS of gold since April, India has added 80 tons, Turkey 62, and the list goes on. Is the U.S. — or other Western nations — selling gold to China? And if so, why wouldn’t we be buying it, instead? Carol Roth, financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ joins Glenn to make sense of this ‘head scratcher.’ She theorizes what’s REALLY going on with gold, and she explains why the U.S.’s lack of longterm thinking regarding gold, should worry you.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All righty then. I saw a -- I saw a disturbing story from Bloomberg. Last week. And I haven't mentioned it because I wanted to make sure I had some facts on it. I called Carol Roth. I called everybody I know. And they said, that doesn't seem. Well, I don't know. Let me look into it.

Carol is here to explain this. Here's what I found in Bloomberg.

Asia has net imported gold from the West. Since April. The trade flow into China. 160 tons of gold. Into India. 80 tons. Into Turkey. Sixty-two. Thailand. 38 tons. Saudi Arabia, 20 tons. Malaysia. 4 tons. Hong Kong 3 tons.

Where did they get all this gold?

Well, the UK sold 15 tons of gold from their Treasury. 32 tons. South Africa. Canada, 33. Australia, 34 tons. And the United States of America, sold 136 tons of gold. If we send that to China, why are we selling gold when smart money would be buying gold? Hopefully, Carol will have an answer for us in 60 seconds.

By the way, as we're talking with this, let me tell you about Goldline. The United States top economists are saying, that we will enter a recession, in the coming 12 months. If we aren't already in one. The only reason why we're still debating this. Is because Republicans don't have control of the House or the Senate. As soon as they get control of the House and the Senate, I can guarantee you, we're in a recession. And it's their policies that put us into one. In fact, Joe Biden said it just this weekend, they're going to collapse the economy. That's their plan. To collapse the economy.

Oh, shut up. How do we -- I was going to say, how do we -- how do we deal with the amount of lies and smoke screens, that are put out?

Well, you just have to know what is true. What is true always has value.

The dollar won't always have value. Because it's no longer true.

There's no full faith and credit in the United States of America anymore. So what is true? What does the world always respond to?

Gold. They always -- look what China is doing. And India. And then look at what we're doing. Goldline has a deal this week, on their historic graded 5-dollar gold Indian coins. With every box of 20 of the graded coin, you'll receive 100 of the silver Mind Your Business bars at no cost.

That's a great deal. Both of these items are ideal for barter. Not that I would suggest you do this. I'm a coin collector myself. 866GOLDLINE. 866GOLDLINE or goldline.com.

Carol, please tell me I'm reading too much into this. Please tell me. Please tell me.

CAROL: So this has been a little bit of a Nancy Drew mystery for me, Glenn.

I saw this Bloomberg piece as well, and it was a little bit of a head scratcher. So I'm going to take you through some of the things I found, and hopefully we can piece this together.

GLENN: Okay. This is really weird.

Because I went to some really big brains, that know this kind of stuff. No one had an answer for me.

CAROL: Okay. So I think -- I'll wrap it in a bow first, and then I'll walk it back. But I think this is the short-term trader mindset, versus people who have a long-term view on the world. So this is short-termism, versus long-termism.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

CAROL: So the first thing that we have to understand, the thing I did was went, oh, my gosh, all this gold is flowing east. Or where is it coming from? Is our central bank that dumb, that they're selling gold?

So I pulled a chart of central banks. And central banks have been net buyers of gold, for most of the year, since April. Which is the same time period of the chart.

That's April to August. They have pretty much everybody is a purchaser of gold. There's almost --

GLENN: Including us?

CAROL: Just a tiny little bit -- every central bank in the world. Which means, even if we're not purchasing it. We're not selling any. There's almost no net sales. So that means our central bank is not the one selling this. We'll take that off the table.

GLENN: Here's what I couldn't figure out either. Is the Treasury the same as the central bank? Does the Central Bank have all of the Treasury's gold?

What --

CAROL: So they're probably not.

But let me walk through where I think this is coming from.

GLENN: All right.

CAROL: So the second piece I went to, was the consumer market. And consumers, seeing what's going on with inflation.

Understanding that a recession is here, and that it's going to get worse next year, have also been buying.

And by the way, we can't supply them. So both here in the US, as well, particularly in the east, much more in the east. There's been an additional premium.

And I'm going, what's going on here. What you have to understand about the market for gold, is that the prices for the gold, when you call Goldline, to buy your gold, like you and I do, Glenn. You're buying physical gold, but that price isn't being set by the supply and demand of you and I buying it.

It's being set by these future markets. By these traders, who are trading contracts.

And all of these derivative products, the options, the futures, they are so much larger than the underlying product.

And, yes, if this sounds like a familiar story. It is one. But the research estimates put the sides of these futures market, at 200 to $300 trillion of value being traded. With the underlying supply of goodly. The underlying supply of gold, underlying supply of gold is like 11 to $12 trillion.

GLENN: This is why I say all the time. Don't buy paper gold. Don't do it.

Don't do it. It will be worthless in the end.

CAROL: Exactly. So let me tell you what's happening. These traders are looking at not just what's happening in the physical supply demand. They're looking at little blips on their screen. And they're saying, oh, well, historically, when we have a strong dollar, that means that's not good for gold. So we should probably get out of it, as the fed tightens their monetary policy.

They have gotten to the point, where these crazy traders are actually not short on gold. Meaning that they have sold more than they have. And this is only the third time since 2014 that this has happened. This happened in 2015. It happened in 2018. And what my researchers have told me is both of those times, as you can imagine, when you have all of these shorts out there, but this crazy macro economic environment. It's prime for a short squeeze. And that's set major floors, and there's been huge rallies involved.

So once again, we have the financialization of a product. A product that is very important to us.

You know, being bastardized by Wall Street. And what happens, in China. And India. And other parts of Asia. Is that they're smart. They go, well, the price is falling. We should load up on it.

Buy low. Sell high. So they actually create a floor for the price of gold. Because they know they can get it at cheaper prices than it's actually worth. So they go in, and they load up on it.

And that's the tenor of what's been happening here, which is just complete insanity. So my speculation, is that institutional investor's gold, that is flowing because these traders are doing the same thing that the traders always do. They're being short-termed, grubby, greedy, and not looking at the bigger macro environments.

GLENN: That means, then we are doing that. We as a nation are -- we're going to be the opposite of the big short. Right?

We're selling, when we should be buying.

CAROL: So the good news is, our central bank. Our country has -- and, again, if this is true. Right?

So I'm just going to report what's being reported. I did not go to Fort Knox and verify, that the gold is actually there.

But we actually have the most gold in the world per -- by a country.

GLENN: I do not know if I actually believe that, but they say -- they say that's 85, or 84.

CAROL: 8100 tons. Tons. Yes.

GLENN: Tons. How much is that worth?

CAROL: I knew that you would ask me that question, and it was Monday, and my calculator wasn't big enough.

GLENN: Try it.

CAROL: It's a lot. A lot.

GLENN: I looked at it, and it's in the two or three digit trillions.

STU: Give me the number one more time.

CAROL: 8100 tons of gold.

GLENN: Which is about 32,000 ounces per ton?

STU: Thirty-two thousand ounces per ton?

GLENN: Yeah. And gold is trading at about $17 an ounce.

So how much is -- if they say we have this -- to me it makes no sense.

STU: 1700 an ounce, you said?

It's a big number. Let's --

GLENN: Yeah. Go ahead. Try to figure it out.

STU: Yeah, I know. Here we go.

CAROL: This is a lot for a Monday, guys.

STU: $440 billion dollars plus.

GLENN: No, no, no. Billion. It's higher than that. It has to be trillion.

STU: I'm going by your numbers here.

GLENN: 32,000 ounces, times eight.

STU: Thirty-two thousand times 8100, times 1700. So I'll do it again. 8100 times 32,000 times 1700, is, let's see. Yeah, 440 billion.

GLENN: No.

STU: So, again, I think maybe you're -- are you sure about that number of 32,000 ounces? I don't know --

CAROL: I will look that up.

STU: Too low.

GLENN: Look it up. Yeah, that's way too low.

It's got to be in the trillions. It's got to be in the trillions.

CAROL: It's probably somewhere I would say between 440 billion and a trillion dollars.

Again, like you said, it's just the central bank piece of it.

At any rate, the U.S. has more than any other individual country. The Eurozone, as a group, actually has more than the US.

And on a sort of tons to GDP, you know, value standpoint. You know, we are -- you know, we're not quite at our GDP, but we're in sort of a good position.

The only ones that are really stacking up via their GDP, is the Eurozone and Russia. And now China is starting to continue to add to that.

So, you know, it's a very strange situation. And it's also a strange situation, Glenn. If you think about the fact that the traders are doing this, based on, quote, unquote, dollar strength. Because they're looking at the dollar strength versus other currencies.

But they're not looking at the dollar's lack of strength at home. The dollar is not strong when you go to buy your groceries, or you go to pay your rent, or you go to heat your house.

And so that is the challenge. That is what we are. When we go and we buy physical gold, that's one of the things we're continuing to protect against. The continual debasement in the value of the dollar. So there really is a setup here. Potentially for, you know, some sort of a squeeze. Or even the collapse of some point of the paper gold market. Which means, eventually, things would change, to going off the actual spot price, of supply and demand. Which is how this should be based to start.

GLENN: Okay. So I should not be worried that Bloomberg's headline is, gold's great migration, sends bullion rushing east.

CAROL: No. I think you should be worried. And I think the reason why you should be worried is the people in Asia are taking a long-term view. And the people in the West are not. And that is going to come back to bite us. And by the way, usually this ends up flowing back. When the price goes high, in the past, it has flowed back. Because, you know, of course, we'll buy it at the higher price --

GLENN: Which is so stupid.

CAROL: Which makes no sense.

But the people I'm talking to, who really know this stuff, say not this time. We're in a new financial world order, something is going to shift here, and so don't expect that flow to come back the other way.

GLENN: Wow. One last thing, Carol. I appreciate your work on this.

Because I couldn't -- I couldn't make heads or tails of this, and our gold situation is so not transparent in America.

CAROL: It's a travesty. It really is. Something needs to change with this market, it does.

GLENN: It is. The other question is, we just sent the 101st Airborne, over to support NATO.

The Pentagon said, this weekend, we're ready to go to war if we have to go to war with Russia and Ukraine. What does war mean to our economy, if -- if it starts, with Russia?

CAROL: I mean, you know, there's obviously a bunch of layers of scenarios, depending on how bad it is. Certainly, the defense sector will be doing very well.

And it's just a question, of how much is this being fought over there? How much of what we're doing ends up being disrupted? Or does it end up being something that looks more like the recent wars that we've had in Afghanistan. And the like.

So I just it really depends on the scope. But, certainly, if we get into a big escalation here. And this becomes something that is like a world war, a true world war. I think we can all pretty much not take a pretty big leap of faith. To guess, that that is not going to be a good sign for our economy, particularly at a time when the economy is breaking down, and the Federal Reserve has been taking steps to damage the economy to do that, quote, unquote, demand destruction. To create higher unemployment. All of those things. You know, not that there's ever a good time for a war. But it will just exacerbate those issues.

GLENN: Okay. I would love for you to look into something else. Right now, Biden is saying, the G.O.P. will collapse the economy. What he's saying, they will shut down the government. That's a lie. You can shut the government down.

Pay your bills. And not go defunct. Can you not?

CAROL: I would love them -- when they shut down the government, they can't spend any money. He's basically setting this up. He knows the Republicans have a strong chance here. And he knows the economy is going into a worst condition. He's basically setting up the blame for the things he has been created. He's already pinned it on things that will happen.

GLENN: Right. I would like you to look at, how the government actually pays its bills. And you don't go into default if you're a nation, if you shut down. There are ways to do it, so you don't go into default. So we can stop this madness.

CAROL: And we can bust this. I have this great deficit myth, when you have a $1.4 trillion deficit on 40 percent more spending. Would love to chat about that with you.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Thank you very much. Carol, we'll have you on maybe later on this week.

We'll cover both of those things. That's Carol Roth. You can follow Carol, @CarolRoth. CarolRoth.com/Glenn is where you will be taken to her page, where you can find all the information she does with us. CarolRoth.com/Glenn.

Gina Carano Just Got One Step Closer to WINNING Against Disney

Actress Gina Carano has won a “major victory” against Disney. Almost no one sues The Mouse and wins. But now, a discovery motion has been granted in the former “Mandalorian” star’s wrongful termination lawsuit against Disney. So, Glenn speaks with another woman who sued Disney and won, former ESPN host Sage Steele. Sage explains why this is such a big deal, what it’s like to sue one of the nastiest legal giants in the world, and what she and Gina have bonded over. Plus, Sage comments on Disney’s decision to NOT fire “Snow White” star Rachel Zegler, who tanked the movie with her political statements: “The double standard is what must be called out.”

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Also, did you see, Stu, that Gina Carano, has just won a lawsuit against Disney?

STU: Yeah. That's a big -- that doesn't normally happen, does it? They have big lawyers.

GLENN: No. No. And there's a reason for that. Walt Disney learned his lesson in about 19, I think, '29 or '30 something. He had Oswald the Rabbit. And he leaves them. He leaves Universal. And he's like, I don't know.

Don't worry. And Universal is like, all right. Go ahead.

And he's like, we're not afraid. Because I got Oswald the Rabbit.

They're like, no, actually, we have Oswald the Rabbit. And he had already quit. He had already put the gears in motion. And he had nothing. He had no idea.

So he gets on a train, and his brother is freaking out on the West Coast.

He's like, wait a minute. What? And he's like, yeah. Well, don't worry. I got something else.

He had nothing. He gets on the train, and he starts doodling. And on the napkin, he draws Mickey Mouse.

STU: This is why you love him so much. This story. He risked everything, and he actually had nothing.

But he made it up after his. And it all worked out. Anyway.

He was saying -- so he's -- he -- he was bound and determined.

I will never be behind the eight ball ever again!

So he created the nastiest attorney firm in the history of the world!

I don't think there's any corporation that is more nasty than, you know -- than the Disney corporation.

Here we have two stories now.

We have Gina Carano.

And the last time I saw somebody win.

Was Sage Steele. That's two women that have beaten Disney.

STU: Yeah. That's right.

GLENN: I think that's remarkable. I wanted to call our good friend Sage Steele, get her on. Sage, how are you?

SAGE: Hello, Glenn. I'm great. And I'm so happy for Gina. It's not over yet! But this is a major battle that she won.

GLENN: I know. Right. Right. She actually, now, Disney has to turn over information about how everybody is paid on the Mandalorian and any other Star Wars shows.

And they didn't want to do that. But would you agree with me, Sage, that that's just -- just that's a remarkable win?

SAGE: Absolutely. It's a huge win.

And also, I mean, Disney's delay tactics have just been ongoing.

And they lost that too, a couple of months ago. And they were trying to get this lawsuit thrown out altogether.

They said, let's go. Quit procrastinating. And so this is massive. Because when you look at how they paid other stars on these projects. And other people.

Basically, this is about Disney trying to hide what they've been paying those people, this whole time.

While allowing them to go off on social media. And Pedro Pascal, you know, comparing Donald Trump to Hitler, one of those, and that's fine to do on your social media. But Gina Carano gets fired. So now that they have to reveal these financial records, this goes to show what Gina would have made had they not wrongly terminated her. And this is a major, major victory.

GLENN: What is it like, when you realize, oh, Good Lord, they're sending the mouse with the briefcase my way? What is it like when you realize, you're in a lawsuit against Disney?

SAGE: Well, first of all, filing the lawsuit against Disney is not fun.

GLENN: Right. Did everybody in the room, when you said that, did everybody go, what did you just say, you're going to do?

SAGE: Yeah. You, idiot.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

SAGE: I mean, David versus Goliath for sure.

I had Disney -- last summer. I hadn't met her.

Of course, I followed her story.

We met. We hugged.

It was an emotional episode.

Because we both understood, in a very unique way, that I hope many don't have to understand.

The fear that comes with it.

At some point, you get pushed around enough.

And you say, no. This is wrong.

And if I stay silent, then it's on me.

And I know, personally. I will look at myself in the mirror. And Gina felt the same way.

And she has worked so hard, and done so, professionally.

You know, to the nth degree, for all those years. Gina, one thing I didn't have in my attorney is the best in the business. Bryan Freedman, who represented Megyn Kelly, who represented Tucker Carlson, who represented Justin Baldoni against crazy Blake Lively right now. My attorney is the best, and he is a dear friend of mine too. Gina has Elon Musk on her side.

GLENN: Wait.

SAGE: Financially, she's in a little different situation than me because Elon Musk is splitting the bill for her. Because he's standing up for what's right, and the First Amendment.

GLENN: Wow. So you look at Gina. What do you think you have -- what was it that you bonded with on that episode that you did?

SAGE: Initially, I think it was the idea of, hey.

Wow. Two people that stood up to Disney. Two women.

What happened?

Who are we? What happened to our lives.

That obvious bond. Because it was such a big deal. And people going, whoa!

But more so. It was the betrayal.

That we felt coming from what we once thought was the best company on earth.

GLENN: Hmm.

SAGE: And under which is an honor to work with them. And for them.

And then when you realize that you are just cast aside, because you didn't believe what they wanted us to believe. Which goes against everything they preach. Diversity of thought and acceptance. And inclusion. And all of those things.

You realize that they were full of it. And people that you looked up to. People that you weren't alongside for years and years and years.

And what they said about you, publicly and privately.

Certainly, never to your face.

There is just a real sense of loss, for relationships.

Because Gina is as tough as they get. I realize, I'm tougher than I thought and ever wanted to be. But Gina is as tough as they get, and she was hurt. I think that's kind of -- and this is not, oh, woe is me. We never -- Gina does not want sympathy. This is about what's right.

And calling these companies out, and that's the other thing we bonded on is calling these companies out, the biggest companies in the world, if we don't, and exposes because we have the ability, based on platforms, that we -- you know, it's a blessing to have these platforms. Right? If we don't use them, to expose and therefore, hopefully maybe fingers crossed, prevent other companies from doing the same BS to these -- to women, men, anywhere.

It doesn't matter.

Black, white, green, blue, LGBT. I don't care.

Just treat us equally, and not punishing us, if we don't agree with what you say. Because, by the way, you will say, this today and that tomorrow.

Who can keep up?

Diversity of thought. First Amendment. And so we bonded over so much.

And I just -- I admire her, and her courage to continue this. Because she completely threw her career away as well, as people said I did.

But, look, she's standing up for what's right. And, Glenn, I told you, when we were together last month doing your show in Texas. The harder right versus the easier wrong.

Gina is doing the harder right, and that takes courage. I'm so honored to know her.

GLENN: You know, I tell you, I think you grow from this. You are seeing new success. She's seeing new success.

And you have become bigger than what you were, in many ways.

Because you're now, a human success story. You now have experienced strife and trouble.

And come out the other side, and realizing that didn't hurt so much.

I mean, it hurt, but it didn't hurt like I thought it was going to hurt.

I thought I was going to burn myself up. And I didn't. And so you become this -- this additional success story, that I think, you know, you look at -- you look at -- what's the woman who is now playing Snow White?

Whatever her name is. You know, they're not firing her. Which, A, must drive you nuts. They're not firing her.

And she -- I mean, next to Mickey Mouse, it is Snow White, that's the -- that's it movie that built that company.

SAGE: Yeah.

GLENN: And for her to go in and destroy the story of Snow White, all of that money -- because you guys weren't bleeding money on you, and your point of view. Or her point of view.

SAGE: Absolutely not.

GLENN: Right?

SAGE: Absolutely not. No matter who is in office, about half the country agrees with you, right? Which means half disagrees. It's usually right down the middle.

And they could have gotten out of that mess with Rachel, I think over a year ago, when she first started to mouth off.

And if nothing else, why don't you at least have a chat? Okay. Fine. Don't fire her. Like you did us. And I didn't get fired.

I mean, we settled my lawsuit, and I chose to leave. Gina was fired though. Rachel was allowed to say much worse, than I think Gina ever said. And I don't know who could disagree with them.

GLENN: And you could show the direct damages. You could show the damages --

SAGE: Look at the numbers. They chose to stick with her. And now look.

So you reap what you sow for sure. But the double standard is the reason, what must be called out.

And they could have at least pulled Rachel aside. And said, we need you to tamp down a little bit.

This isn't good for business.

Maybe they didn't listen. If so, that's a whole other story.

But to your point about what you gain, when you do stand up, I realize, it's just a lot bigger than you.

GLENN: Yeah.

SAGE: And when people come up to Gina. And come up to me.

And I've had fathers come up to me.

Because they've been afraid to stand up for their daughters. Because they're afraid to go to a school board meeting and get fired.

The fear is real. We know that. So I am so grateful, that I just stand up, and I know Gina is.

Because the people that you are affecting just by doing that, standing up, in her case for freedom of -- true freedom of speech, is everything that -- it's so much bigger than every career I could have dreamt of having, and same with her.

Disney is getting a comeuppance, and they need to. And they think -- it's so obvious. They do this to themselves.

And that is why some of the people were more than okay to say what's happening with the Snow White debacle. Shame on them.

GLENN: I'm going to switch subjects in just a second.

I'm doing something with the diesel brothers here in just a couple of months.

I'm taking one of my 1934 race car out.

And we're just going to open it up on a track.

And two other cars. And you were -- and you were leaving my studio. And you were going to the airport.

And you were like, I get an Uber. And I was like, no, no, no.

I'll you there. I'm going that way.

So I take you to the airport, and you are the biggest car hound, I have -- I mean -- I would be broke if I were married to you. Because you would let me buy all the cars. My wife is like, stop it. Stop.

SAGE: I would be like, what are we buying this weekend?

GLENN: I know.

SAGE: Listen, the one thing I regret. The biggest regret I have in life right now is I didn't ask you for a selfie that day, when Glenn Beck drove me to the airport. In what kind of car was that?

GLENN: It was a Continental GTC.

SAGE: Thank you. And it was stunning, and the top was down. And my wild hair was bigger than ever.

And I was like, no one will believe this.

I didn't want to be tacky and ask you for a selfie.

I know. So now the world knows.

GLENN: Well, I want to make sure when we come out when we do the Diesel Brother thing.

Stu will be there. I will be there.

And I would love to have you there.

SAGE: Okay. Is everybody listening?

Glenn says you drive -- me, right?

GLENN: For a second, how are you doing on accidents? Do you have many accidents?

SAGE: Give me that stick shift. Let's go.

No. No accidents. I do have a little bit of a led foot.

But I mean, what a waste, if we don't take those cars and open them up.

GLENN: I know. Do you like electric engines?

SAGE: I've driven it like twice. I don't know.

I appreciate how you barely tap it. And then it's like whiplash, and you're gone.

Like, I appreciate that. But I guess I'm old school. Give me that clutch. Let me do it. That's the real strength and power. You know, come on.

GLENN: I know. Sage, great talking to you. We'll talk again. Thanks for joining us. Sage Steele, host of the Sage Steele Show.

You can get that wherever you get your podcasts. And it's SageSteele.com.

The truth behind the CIA’s Dire Wolf bombshell

A company called Colossal Biosciences claims to have brought the dire wolf back from extinction after 10,000 years. But perhaps just as shocking is where its funding comes from. Glenn reveals that the CIA has invested in the company, and he gives potential reasons why the spy agency would want to fund genetic engineering technology. Does the CIA want to create genetically enhanced animal super weapons for its own use? What about genetically altered humans? And have we learned ANYTHING from Hollywood? Should we be making “Jurassic Park” a reality?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: So, Stu, how excited are you that the animal made famous by Game of Thrones, that went extinct, 13,000 years ago, is among us now?

STU: You know, they said Trump was the greatest comeback story. And now, we have the HEP dire wolf.

GLENN: Yeah. So do we have any of the video of the dire wolf?

Here's the dire wolf. The little babies. Aren't they cute?

STU: Oh, my gosh. I want one.

GLENN: No. You really don't.

STU: Oh, my gosh. I want one.

GLENN: They're so cute, aren't they? Yeah. Listen to that.

STU: They're a little loud.

GLENN: You want to get up in the middle of the night and hear howling? No. Uh-uh. So they retrieved the DNA from fossils of dire wolves. 13,000 years ago, they were over. Then they discovered additional DNA, and they edited 20 genes of gray wolves. And then put the dire wolf in the gray wolf, and we now have the new and improved dire wolf.

Which, hmm. I'm not sure this is a good idea.

You know, when it comes to AI. When it comes to all of that.

Has anyone watched a movie? Has anyone watched a movie?

This was all science fiction, dystopia stuff.

It's now here!

So as I'm going perusing this.

Because remember, the next thing is woolly mammoth.

And we had the CEO on the program.

Remember?

And I said, why are you thinking about bringing the woolly mammoth back?

He said, it would be good for the environment.

What? It would be good for the environment.

Do they not fart? And do they eat cows?

How is that -- he didn't really have a good answer on that. But it will make a lot of people on the left feel good.

Oh, it's good for the environment.

So we'll bring the woolly mammoth back.

And look at, they're so furry and stuff. They'll make great if you are rugs in the end.

The next step is to bring back the woolly mammoth.

Okay. Again!

You know, if you believe in Darwin, you believe in survival of the fittest. There's a reason these animals went extinct.

One of the reasons, I think for like these large, dangerous animals, is so we could live!

You know, there was a lot of, oh, my gosh. Going on, you know what I mean? (sound effect).

I just want to make that clear. Maybe we've forgotten about that. But that's what those animals were doing to humans. But we'll put them on a special island. And then, they will be fine.

So now we have the -- now we have the dire wolf.

Which is -- is truly wonderful.

And as I get into this. I see who some of the investors are.

And one of the investors that is really excited about just pouring money into the colossal bio science, is the CIA.

I'm giving you a chance to process that for a second.

First of all, CIA.

They've got a budget to invest in companies!

Hmm!

Sounds like a bad idea.

STU: Shouldn't really be part of what the CIA does.

GLENN: Well.

STU: It's not a hedge fund, right?

GLENN: Hmm. They're not just investing. They have good reason to invest, okay?

STU: Oh.

GLENN: So if you're looking for -- if you're looking to do what the CIA does, this might be a very good application for them.

Here's why gene editing is catching the eye of the -- are you ready?

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: It's a dual use technology.

Gene editing tools like CRISPR are inherently dual use. Meaning, they can serve civilian purposes. Conservation, biotech breakthroughs, and military intelligence ones.

So okay. I'm trying to -- woolly mammoths. Woolly mammoths. Why would you want to bring a woolly mammoth?

Well, one of them is they believe that they could CRISPR their way into bioengineering resilient organisms.

You know, like spy drones, that are animals.

Oh.

Enhancing human capabilities. Maybe we can Mengele our way into Gene splicing a little of the dire wolf into all of us. So we're a little stronger.

GLENN: I should just on the surface, we shouldn't Mengele ourselves into anything. Always a bad choice. Always.

STU: There's a lot at college campuses right now, where they're saying the opposite, I've noticed in protest. But I'm going to go with no on the Mengele into anything.

GLENN: Try this one on for size.

Another reason why the CIA may be interested in the -- in the new, hey. Let's bring animals back from the dead!

Ecological and geopolitical leverage!

D extinction. Great word, huh?

New. D extinction could reshape eco systems intentionally or not!

Imagine reintroducing a species to destabilize a rival nation's agriculture or environment!

Say, flooding, a region with engineered pests or altering food chains.

You know, I -- I don't think this is a good idea!

I don't think this is a good idea.

If you weren't convinced the CIA is out of control, you might want to share this with your friends.

Bio security and threat assessment. Reason number three. If adversaries develop gene editing for hostile purposes.

In other words, a weaponized pathogen or super soldiers, the CIA needs to stay ahead.

Investing in colossal gives them a front row seat to cutting edge biotech, letting them study its limits or viabilities.

They're not just funding it. They're learning to fend against it, or wield it themselves, if necessary. Now, this is a story coming out of China. Where China is reengineering people, trying to make them smarter.

I mean, come on, guys. Chinese are always. They're better at instruments.

They're better at math. They're better at really almost everything.

STU: This is interesting research.

Interesting approach. Almost have to come up with a name for it.

Like a gain-of-function research.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh!

What a great idea!

Gain of function.

STU: That would work perfectly. What could go wrong?

GLENN: Oh, my gosh. Reason number four. Synthetic biology for covet ops. Picture you're a bioengineered animal. Say, a dire wolf with tweak senses used for surveillance or tracking in remote areas where drones might fail.

STU: We are screwed!

GLENN: Uh-huh.

STU: We are screwed.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Number five, future-proofing influence.

Biotech is supposed to -- is poised to explode, economically. Think lab grown meat.

I don't want to think about lab grown meat. Gene therapies or climate fixes. I don't think we should be doing stuff -- you know, can we really stop? We really should stop. We're creating God in AI. We're now thinking, we can bring things back from the dead!

I believe that was -- those two things were the story of Frankenstein. I just want to throw that in there. Okay? We can bring things back from the dead. You know what we can do?

We can bioengineer so things can live forever.

And it will be smarter. And, of course, it will always stay under our control.

Oh, my gosh.

By backing colossal, the CIA, via IQT, gets a steak in a field, that could rival big tech in influence.

If D extinction tech scales, it might affect food security, land use or even cultural narratives.

Okay. So there's your update on how the world will end today.

That's one of the most disturbing things I have -- I have read in a long time.

You know, I'm just trying to get my arms around AI. And how we can use AI for a very short period of time, before it's turned against us, and eats us all.

Well, we might -- the dire wolf might eat us first.

But I'm just getting my arms around that. I don't think we needed to introduce this one too.

And the fact that the CIA is involved!

Not good.

STU: Yeah. But we can release a bunch of animals in places where drones won't be effective. With their special senses.

GLENN: Where on earth?

Where on earth, would a drone not be effective?

STU: Well, tunnel. Right? Think of the Hamas tunnels. If you release some dire wolves down there, probably more effective than our drones.

GLENN: I think we could go over -- I think we could go over to really nasty parts of like, the Czech Republic. And get dogs that have just been, you know -- they're breeding them to tear people apart, and throw them in the tunnels.

I don't think we need to go back.

STU: Yeah. But they don't have the special senses. They don't have laser eyes. You need to have wolves with the laser eyes. What could go wrong with those?

They're probably great pets.

I feel like the Industrial Revolution gave us a lot of these types of things. Where you would say, for example. We developed cars.

And we could have the same conversation, you know, Model Ts rolling off the assembly line. Like, hey. People will just keep making these things. Faster and faster. And faster.

And they will get to the point where they're going two, three hundred miles an hour. And that happened. Right?

That's happened.

But it doesn't -- there was never a point where they're going so fast. That the entire world ends. Right?

With AI. With gene splicing. With biological warfare. Nuclear warfare. We keep having these conversations. Eventually some bad actor is going to take this to some logical extreme, and we're all screwed.

GLENN: What are the chances there are bad actors in the world? Can you name a thousand?

STU: 1.2 billion. 2.4 billion?

GLENN: I mean, besides everyone that is, you know -- when somebody writes a prescription and gives you advice as a doctor, I don't think they need a pardon, so they can never go to jail. You know what I mean?

You know, when Fauci is just writing a prescription, he's like, look, you should wear a mask. You should wear a mask. And take this.

You know, that's doctor's advice. I don't think that you need a pardon. What he was doing, was so corrupt, that he needed a presidential pardon.

I don't know, those are the kinds of doctors that maybe we should put in jail. Maybe it's just me.

I mean, it -- how do we get to this place? How do we get out?

It's going to be interesting, to see how this all works out.

STU: It will.

GLENN: How do we get out of this place, where we just seem hell-bent on our own destruction?

STU: With all of these things, I just don't see how -- I mean, our response with nuclear weapons.

And biological weapons was to just try to limit them as much as possible.

To go out, every time we heard. Hey, Bob, over in Iran. Might be doing -- might have the nuclear weapon. Why don't we go there and stop them. That's kind of been our approach.

Worked so far.

Eventually, it probably won't.

With AI. Our response is, let's just keep pushing it as fast as possible. With a bunch of really smart companies competing, along with governments doing the same thing.

GLENN: I mean, that's unfair a little bit.

STU: It is?

GLENN: So you have to remember that we didn't control things until after we used the bomb. Everyone was rushing towards it.

And we didn't know.

Honestly, there were, I don't know. 10 percent of scientists that said, if we do this, it could cause a chain reaction, that could set the entire world on fire!

STU: I remember that, from the documentary Oppenheimer.

GLENN: Okay. All right. So not really. Anyway, so --

STU: Close.

GLENN: So we had no idea what we were doing. We just knew, we had to get there first!

So afterwards, this is where it becomes fair.

After his, we could ban it.

We could control it.

It took extraordinary amounts of money to do.

It took certain equipment, that we could just ban.

You can't do that!

Okay?

And it was only -- only nation levels that could actually create one.

You know, the average person couldn't create.

Feen you had all the knowledge in the world. You couldn't create a nuclear weapon in your basement. Right?

You would need access to certain things that could be banned.

When it comes to AI. That's not true.

That's not true.

AI, you're going to have to ban, so much. And if somebody is using a nuclear weapon, on their own people, you know it!

You know what I mean? You would know it.

If somebody is using AI against their own people. You would never know it.

I mean, that's the kind of things that we're dealing with now.

Where it's so insidious.

That it could fall into the hand of one person. And it can design a weapon, that they can make themselves.

That will kill half the people on the planet. And you didn't even see it coming!

You didn't even know.

You didn't even know.

You could have the government ban it. But they're using it on you!

And you would never know.

That's the real problem, I think with AI. And the fact that you can no longer put it back in the bottle.

It's going to happen. We're all racing to get there.

But there is no way to get this back into the bottle. There's no way to control this. Like there was with nukes.

And honestly, that's why Silicon Valley went to Trump.

You know this. Right?

They were having a meeting.

Remember when Kamala Harris was like, AI.

This is great. It's a fun two letters. It's actually two words. Artificial intelligence!

Remember that? So insulting.

That was the meeting she had with all of the bigwigs in Silicon Valley.

And they said at that meeting, don't spend think more money on server farms or anything else.

We're taking care of it. This will all be controlled by the United States government. Because it's too big to let anyone else have it. Except for the United States government. They all walked out and went, we can't have the government have this. We will let the government be the only one that has this.

That's not good. That's why they flipped to Trump. Because they realized, this cannot be just in the hands of the government. But I would be the one in the room going, I don't think any of you guys should have this in your hands. Nobody should have access.

What you're building is an anti-God.

NEW GAMESHOW: The WORST Tesla Vandal Videos!

It's time for America's most DESTRUCTIVE game show: "NAME! THAT! MANIFESTO!" Game show host Glenn Beck brings in the contestants, BlazeTV hosts Stu Burguiere and Dave Landau, to watch the worst of the latest attacks on Tesla vehicles. After watching the short clip, contestants must guess why the perpetrator vandalized the car. Was it climate extremism? Was it to push for communism? Was it just that they hate Elon Musk? Or was it because Disney's "Snow White" crashed at the box office? Play along at home and find out!

Did Fake News Just Crash the Market? The Grim Reality Unveiled

The stock market went on a rollercoaster ride due to fake news that President Trump is pausing his reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Glenn and Stu take a look at the story, why it’s evidence that maybe we should slow the panic a little bit, and how it can help us interpret the stock market moving forward. Plus, Glenn and Stu review a new poll that doesn’t look good for humanity: how many people think they can outrun a horse?

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

We have an update. The market bounced back after it was released in the news, that Donald Trump may consider a 90-day pause. And then we were watching it bounce back. And then all of a sudden, it dropped down again. And it lost, maybe 200 points? Again.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Not detainer sure what happened until we checked the news.

STU: It seems like all these media organizations reported, an interpretation from some social media of your of an interview. In which the interview.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. I want to track that back down.

Of an interview with Trump?

STU: No. That was a good question.

It was a Trump official.

GLENN: Named official? Or Trump official, official?

So we have Trump. And then we have the Trump official.

And then it's -- it's somebody on social media. Doing an analysis of what that Trump official said. Right.

STU: Right.

GLENN: And then the media picks up on that.

So they're quoting.

STU: National economic counsel director Kevin Hassett.

Basically, all he said was like, look, I think -- he was asked by Brian Kilmeade.

Would Trump consider a 90-day pause?

And hasn't said, I think the president will decide what the president will decide.

GLENN: Well, and that means, yes. He will consider.

STU: It's incredible.

GLENN: That's how -- that's why where we that story.

We gave it to you, like four minutes ago.

Go off the air. Like commercial break. And it's all reversed. The stock market goes down. I think we should probably slow down a little bit.

There's no --

STU: We even brought it up. It's to discuss why the market moved. Why the market moved.

So it -- it's an appropriate explanation, I think.

But now --

GLENN: Official breaking, the White House now says, 1900 day pause is fake news.

STU: There's no pause. For you the market is down again.

GLENN: That is crazy.

STU: You know, I will say this, Glenn.

And I don't know what you think about this as far as politics go. Taking it out where you end up on this. We've had really bad economic times before. Right? COVID. Housing crisis in '08. The bursting of the bubble of the internet back in 2000. And you go back to '87, right? That market crashed.

All those things.

All those things came from what seemed like an outside event.

Right? To the American people.

Seemed like, you talked about the housing policies. And what led to the housing crisis for years before that.

And warned about that for years. So there were policies that were directly associated with that. But that's not how the American people took that. It felt like, oh, gosh. The housing market just crashed.

COVID just happened.

You know, this one, I think to the American people, right or wrong, is going to feel like, tariffs caused this.

And I'm worried about how they interpret that.

GLENN: Let me help you out on that.

That's because people did not interpret the stock market and what is going on in our economy as bogus.

STU: Yes, you're right. I think you're right.

GLENN: It's all this bogus money that the Fed keeps printing. And putting in the system with 0 percent interest rate.

It's all funny money. The stock market is no longer tied to anything real.

And everybody -- everybody just bypassed that. And went, wow. Things are really good. Things are really good.

No!

It was all bogus.

All of that is bogus.

STU: I sensed the weakness during Biden. Right?

The market went up with bind. They sensed the weakness.

They sensed it in the economy.

I think the optimism of Trump's policies. Launched into another stratosphere.

GLENN: That is our McDonald's attitude!

That is, yeah. I would like some tariffs. And I Diet Coke.

I mean, no! This is not a drive through. You're not going to get it, by the time you get up to the window.

STU: But I think that's the point I bring up. I think that's how a lot of people consume things.

GLENN: Correct.

Look what just happened!

Stock market. The stock market.

People who are supposedly, you know, educated, they turned that thing on a dime he has

STU: Yeah. But that's people who are really engaged, right?

They're overreacting to news that they are seeing.

The average person is not even following this on a day-to-day basis. They're seeing that general downturn. And if that continues with them, I -- I wonder if this is going to be seen, if this is -- turns into a recession, which it's not yet. If it turns into a long-term negative consequence, it could be seen as essentially Trump's fault. Which means that the entire movement has problems. As opposed to COVID, what people saw was, okay. China released this virus, or it started in China. It took over everything.

GLENN: No, they blamed it on Trump because the media did.

STU: I don't think he took.

I mean, I think he won in 2024.

Because of what people remembered in his economy in 2014.

2020, was some outside thing that he couldn't do something about.

GLENN: Why did he lose then?

The economy was doing really, really well.

Why did he lose? They blamed him for COVID, shutting us down.

Blah, blah, blah. You know, the stuff that he did. That made sense, at the very beginning.

STU: Right.

I remember that being more broad an argument. I mean, no one thought it was Trump's fault that the economy crashed because of COVID.

You can blame him and say, hey.

I don't think he should have locked down. Again, he didn't really do that.

GLENN: Democrats have country that. Look what he did to the economy, and they won. And they won.

STU: They did win. They did win.

GLENN: So I think that's the ill-informed again. Let me give you this survey. Ready for this survey?

STU: Hit me with it. Hit me with it.

GLENN: Out of 50 men, if you ask them, in 100-meter sprint, can you beat a horse?

How many say yes?

STU: How many say yes, they could beat a horse?

GLENN: Beat a horse.

STU: A specific horse. Could be a horse that's dead?

GLENN: No. No. No, just a regular horse.

STU: So we assume a normal horse at a regular speed. Not necessarily a race horse. Just a normal horse.

GLENN: No, just a horse. I can outrun a horse.

STU: The correct answer to this would be zero. Zero. That's what it should be.

GLENN: Zero. Because a racehorse can run 40 miles an hour. Doughnut if you know this, you can't. Usain Bolt, he's the fastest in a sprint, 27 miles an hour. Okay?

Horse, a little faster. Okay?

So only 2 percent out of 50. So not --

STU: Okay. That's not actually bad. 2 percent will say anything, right?

GLENN: That's the one they say is number 15 on the big charts of animals I could beat. Okay?

There are 15. Then you get to a zebra. Okay. I will pass that on, maybe you don't think zebras actually exist. You know, we have none here.

STU: It is strange.

GLENN: Deer? I could outrun a deer. A fox. An ostrich. Number ten, I can outrun a cheetah!

STU: A cheetah would be the one I would think would be the lowest number. Because theater fastest animal. Right?

GLENN: Right. A kangaroo. A mongoose. I don't even what an a mongoose is. So I will give this a pass.

Ready for this? I can outrun a swarm of bees.

STU: I mean, no. You can't. Not for a long time.

GLENN: No, no, I don't think you can. I don't think you can. Have you ever seen --

STU: They are fast.

GLENN: Why wouldn't people just run? If the bees -- when you're being swarmed, just run. They can't keep up with you. You can't outrun bees. I can outrun a house cat?

STU: No. I mean, people have seen cats before, they're fast.

GLENN: I can outrun a goat. I can outrun a rabbit.

STU: A goat. How fast are goats?

GLENN: I don't have that stat. I don't have that stat.

STU: I don't -- all the other ones seem completely absurd. I'm thinking of a goat.

They're kind of climbing a side of a mountain.

They don't look that fast. I could probably take them.

GLENN: Would you say, yes, I could probably take a goat. I don't know.

GLENN: Okay. A goat? A rabbit?

STU: No. Rabbits are incredibly fast, no.

GLENN: Okay. A hippopotamus.

STU: I mean, a hippo, again, I've never raised a hippo myself.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

STU: But I -- like, a hippo doesn't seem like a fast animal. They move pretty slow.
GLENN: Is it the hippopotamus or the rhinoceros? One of those is the most deadly animal alive. They're fast, and they'll stomp you to death.

STU: Really? I thought it was mosquitoes. Aren't mosquitoes the most deadly animal?

GLENN: No. Of course not. I can outrun a mosquito.

Number two.

STU: Why don't we tell that to the African nations. Tell your people to outrun a mosquito.

GLENN: Run? Why don't you run? Number two, I can outrun an elephant?

STU: Yeah. See, an elephant does not look like it moves quickly. But the strides are large. You have to factor that in.

GLENN: I don't have to factor that in. I just know, I can't outrun an elephant. They're fast animals. They're an animal. They're a giant animal.

STU: So are we. We're all animals.

GLENN: Right. Yeah. Not fast!

STU: Look, I'm not saying I would say that I could outrun an elephant. I could understand why someone might say that.

GLENN: Why do you think we invented the gun? Why do you think men invented the gun? We couldn't outrun any of these animals.

STU: That's a good point.

GLENN: Okay? That's the only reason why we're at the top of the food chain.

Because we're like, oh, really? Take that elephant. I can outrun an elephant. Yes, if I have a rifle.

I will do that.

STU: Because then it can be dead. And you can walk away from it.

GLENN: So we don't. We have a pretty healthy, we have a pretty healthy view of ourself.

10 percent say that they have actually -- sorry, 28 percent say they have actually been out in the wild, some place, and clocked an animal, and thought to themselves. I can outrun that!

A tenth of them have actually tried to do that. I don't know. Got out of their car. And was like, come on, horse. Bring it on.

And 11 percent.

Now, out of those showdowns, mainly with dogs. 61 percent have tried to race their dog. 26 percent have tried to race their cat.

I mean --

STU: How would you even do such a thing. 19 percent have tried to race a goat. Okay?

But 60 percent. Only 60 percent said, yeah. I couldn't -- I couldn't run. 26 percent considered themselves winners. And here's my favorite, 14 percent said it was a draw. It was a draw.

I mean, I think we both -- I talked to the goat afterwards. You agree, right?

We finished. We're basically at the same place. And you have four legs. So, you know, you might have run double the distance. But you have double the legs. So we're a draw, right?

Oh, my gosh.

I think we're a -- I think we're in trouble.

18 percent say they would back themselves to beat -- beat somebody in an arm-wrestling match. Only 11 percent of women. Why?

Wait. Why would only 11 percent of women? Women are no different than men. Hold on just a second.

Oh, it's ego probably.

It's mansplaining. The 26 percent of men say I could beat anybody in a wrestling match, and only 11 percent of women.

Probably because of what men have said to women. That you are not strong enough to beat a big, strong guy.

Because we all know that could happen. 72 percent of all respondents admitted that men are more likely to believe that men could beat an animal, than -- than women.

My favorite, is sure, I can outrun a horse, I can outrun a cheetah. But some -- some people -- one in 50, believe they can outswim a dolphin.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Don't know if you know this, they're in the water. That's their domain. You know.

Now, I could outrun a dolphin. You put one on the beach. I'll beat him every single time. Outswim him? No. I don't -- uh-uh.

I don't think. You should probably -- you get a nap in. Let's readdress this maybe tomorrow.