Who doomed the petrodollar: America or Saudi Arabia?



There has been a lot of confusion lately about Saudi Arabia allegedly ending a 50-year-deal with the United States that tied oil sales to the U.S. dollar.

While many have claimed that the deal never actually existed, financial expert Carol Roth is here to clear that up.

“There was a deal put in place, but never once did I come across anything that said we have a specific expiration,” Roth tells Glenn Beck, who notes himself that if the world goes off the petrodollar, “that is the beginning of the end.”

Roth explains that when the United States went off the gold standard, they created a secret delegation that went to Saudi Arabia as part of a diplomatic tour.

“There was an oil embargo put in place by the Arab oil exporters. It sent the price of oil sky-high. So, the big objective was basically the U.S. didn’t want crude oil, you know, energy, which is obviously really what fuels growth around the world to become an economic weapon,” Roth explains.

“They knew, 'Okay, well, now we’re off the gold standard, we’ve got this currency, wouldn’t it be great to have somebody finance our deficits?'” She continues.

In exchange for economic and military support, the Saudis struck a deal with the U.S. to price oil in dollars around the world.

“There was a secret piece of it, and that was that the Saudis did not want everyone to know that they had this huge treasury stockpile,” Roth says, noting that it was because they didn’t want anyone to know how “closely they were in bed with the U.S.”

Now, this deal has ended.

“The FED has managed to hold the dollar not stable either for the world or domestically,” Roth says. “So, it’s not like they even made the tradeoff. They just abandoned it all together.”

“The big issue, if you are these countries around the world that now have everything priced in dollar, all of your major commodities, because it’s not just oil at this point,” she continues, “When you have these huge swings in the dollar, that means that threatens you as a nation, because you now may not be able to afford energy, or you may not be able to afford the food for your country.”

“That’s a national security issue,” she says. “And so, countries were getting sick of that we weaponized the U.S. dollar, and at the end of the day, they’re starting to move away from it.”

This is why it isn’t the Saudis who are to blame for the end of the deal.

“The Saudis did not break a deal. We’ve broken the deal long ago,” Roth says.


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

If Biden’s Economy Were ‘Strong,’ Our Trade Partners Wouldn’t Be De-Dollarizing

The U.S.-Saudi agreement designating the U.S. dollar as the global-trade currency for oil sales is over, furthering de-dollarization.

How The Government Will Try To Take Over Crypto

The federal government has historically shown its determination to gain control over new markets, and cryptocurrency will likely be the same.

Why We Have Record Inflation And It’s Probably Not Going Away Fast

Economists’ track record at diagnosing and resolving ‘inflation’ problems over the past 70 years or so has been very bad.

Will The U.S. Heed The Lessons Of The 1930s Or Repeat Their Mistakes?

Today’s Western retrenchment is as provocative as it was in the 1930s. The U.S. is signaling its retreat and China will gladly fill the vacuum.

American Bar Association gives Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating



The American Bar Association on Sunday announced that it has given Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett its highest rating.

Monday is the start of Barrett's Senate confirmation hearings.

What are the details?

In a Sunday letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the American Bar Association advised that Barrett is "well qualified" for a position on the Supreme Court.

On Sunday, DC Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy shared the letter on Twitter, writing, "The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is 'Well Qualified' on the eve of the start of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings."

A portion of the letter reads, "The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the federal judiciary has completed its evaluation of the professional qualifications of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by the President to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States."

"As you know, the Standing Committee confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament," the letter continues. "A substantial majority of the standing committee determined that Judge Barrett is 'Well Qualified,' and a minority is of the opinion that she is 'Qualified' to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."

The letter concludes, "The majority rating represents the Standing Committee's official rating."

The American Bar Association released its determination that Judge Amy Coney Barrett is “Well Qualified” on the eve… https://t.co/oCbpWdnzgD
— JERRY DUNLEAVY (@JERRY DUNLEAVY)1602472764.0

What else?

As noted by the Daily Wire, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in 2001 referred to the American Bar Association's judicial ratings as the "gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged."

On Sunday night, Barrett released the opening statement she plans to issue on Monday morning.

A portion of her remarks read:

Courts have a vital responsibility to enforce the rule of law, which is critical to a free society. But courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our public life. The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.

That is the approach I have strived to follow as a judge on the Seventh Circuit. In every case, I have carefully considered the arguments presented by the parties, discussed the issues with my colleagues on the court, and done my utmost to reach the result required by the law, whatever my own preferences might be. I try to remain mindful that, while my court decides thousands of cases a year, each case is the most important one to the parties involved. After all, cases are not like statutes, which are often named for their authors. Cases are named for the parties who stand to gain or lose in the real world, often through their liberty or livelihood.

You can read the remarks in their entirety here and below.

NEW — Amy Coney Barrett’s opening statement. Notable line: “The policy decisions and value judgments of government… https://t.co/0JEGNwWnnE
— Seung Min Kim (@Seung Min Kim)1602424362.0