Freddoso on Spector, forced Health Care


The Case Against Barack Obama

by David Freddoso

GLENN: Let me go to David Freddoso. He is with the National Review. Hey, David.

FREDDOSO: How are you doing, Glenn?

GLENN: Very good. So David, help me out here. Are you one of these guys who's like, Arlen Specter, the Republicans have got to move closer to the middle and more progressive.

FREDDOSO: You know, what really strikes me, Glenn, is the severe case of amnesia that Senator Specter seems to have as though, you know, the Republican Party is supposedly so completely intolerant of, you know, more moderate members that if you'll recall, President Bush went in there and dedicate and basically saved him from becoming a former senator in 2004, if you recall that, and also Senator Rick Santorum basically sacrificed his reputation with his entire base in the same year to save Arlen Specter's political career and that all of a sudden, oh, the Republican Party is so, you know, it's moved to the right. Well, no. The reason that Arlen Specter has gotten out is that the Republican voters in Pennsylvania according to the polls are just waiting to end his career. That's what's going on.

GLENN: They are waiting to end his career because he doesn't stand for anything. I mean, this is the to me this is the quintessential example of how spineless these politicians are. He says just a few weeks ago, "You know what, there needs to be a balance of power." That one sold out the window. As soon as he realized, oh, crap, I could lose and not have my job anymore? I've got to switch parties.

FREDDOSO: Yeah. And when I hear him talk about how this is for the good of Pennsylvania, I think, well, okay, that may be true if no other senator, Democrat or Republican could do for Pennsylvania what you've been doing for it which I think is a ridiculous proposition, just extreme arrogance.

GLENN: Oh, I don't know if anybody could really I don't know, David, if anybody could really pull off what he's pulled off, you know, and brought all those great things to Pennsylvania.

FREDDOSO: Well, you know, maybe that's right. I mean, the interesting thing now is that there's no guarantee the Democrats are actually going to give in their nomination. I would be rather suspicious. People, party switchers often face a lot of trouble. And you know what? Frankly Specter on some things from a conservative perspective has been very good and now all those things are going to come back to haunt him in the Democratic primary. They are going to run ads about how he doesn't support the Employee Free Choice Act, they are going to run ads about how here's a guy with a picture of Dick Cheney and George Bush, here's Arlen Specter who helped to push Sam Alito and John Roberts through the Senate judiciary committee, here's Arlen Specter who voted for President Bush's tax cuts. So now he faces you know, he's been spending all his time trying to move to the right, expecting a Republican primary and all of a sudden he realizes he's going to lose. He has to now spend the next year moving toward the left in order to prepare himself for a Democratic primary, and I just don't know if he can do that, switch around fast enough.

GLENN: Tell me about Joe Schwarz and Wayne Gilchrest.

FREDDOSO: Right, okay. So here are two members for congress that the club tore growth decided to take on, Joe Schwarz in Michigan, the 7th district in Michigan and Wayne Gilchrest in the eastern shore district out in Maryland. Both of them, after losing their primaries to conservative candidates, endorsed a Democrat. Now, that's called, you know, sore loser basically. If you recall in 2004 when Pat Toomey lost to Arlen Specter, he endorsed Specter right away and this whole business about having a big tent party and don't criticize your fellow Republican, the old 11th commandment of Ronald Reagan doesn't seem to apply when it comes to moderate Republicans. All of a sudden there's this different standard. People didn't you know, right now as you mentioned, we have this media feeding frenzy saying, oh, you know, this Specter thing is proof that the Republican Party's going in the wrong direction. Well, when Wayne Gilchrest and Joe Schwarz went off the rails and started endorsing Democrats, did anybody say well, you know, this just goes to show you how moderates, you know, can't be trusted to be team players. I don't think anybody tried to make that case at the time. I don't think as a blanket case it's a true; it would be a true case. But the case they are making now and I'll admit I've been watching MSNBC, which is bad for my blood pressure, but that's all you seem to be hearing now is that

GLENN: Well, you know what, David? I contend this is a bogus argument. I contend that the whole idea that the conservatives the Republicans need to be more conservative is a bogus argument because conservative means something to everybody, and it means something different to everyone. What they need to be is more classically liberal. They need to be more libertarian. They need to be more rights, protect people's rights, make sure that people have freedom and also shrink the size of government. That's what the Republicans have been missing. What they need to do is irradiate the cancer inside the Republican Party that is called progressivism. That's who they ran. They ran the most moderate progressive the Republicans have. John McCain.

FREDDOSO: Yeah, I do think that the problem is complicated in many ways. I think that McCain's loss doesn't clarify too much as to the state of conservativism. I mean, let's face it. We're in the desert right now. We really are. And it's not just the Republican Party, but right now conservative ideas have lost a lot of credence with the public. And what I think has to happen is unfortunately we're going to have to go back and relearn all of the lessons that we've learned in the last 50 years about what happens when government gets out of control, lessons that helped, you know, ultimately elect Ronald Reagan, that helped usher in the 1994 Republican revolution. But the public may just, the voting public may simply have to relearn those lessons once we run into the brick wall of, you know, Obama style big government with all the borrowing we're going to be doing now and the massive debts that our children and grandchildren are going to be facing. We may just have to relearn all those lessons.

GLENN: David, I contend again that it is not the public that needs to relearn that. There is a good portion, maybe 40% of this country has no clue whatsoever how bad big government really is, maybe. But I contend the average person knows, but there's not anybody out there that knows it that is running, that knows it and can articulate it.

FREDDOSO: No, and that's a good point. Republicans really need to put up they need to be making the good arguments right now. They need to be putting up a good opposition, a strong opposition that, you know, so that at least the arguments out there and so that people will realize, oh, yeah, gee, maybe all this spending wasn't a good idea, maybe nationalizing healthcare, just nationalizing it wasn't a good idea.

GLENN: Right.

FREDDOSO: Maybe nationalizing banks wasn't a good idea.

GLENN: Maybe. You know what, David, let me take a break. Let me come back because I want to talk to you about the nationalization of the banks and the nationalization of healthcare that is going to be slipped in in the cover of darkness. Well, now that Specter's in, maybe they don't have to do that. But how we are fundamentally changing because of these last 100 days. And people don't realize how big the changes are and what they mean for the future. We'll be back with David Freddoso in just a second.

(OUT 9:45)

GLENN: 888 727 BECK. David Freddoso is on with us from national review. You know, David, I'm looking at this stress test from the banks which is completely bogus. The FDIC does a stress test and then it's mysteriously leaked out so it shuts the door on CitiBank or Bank of America, you know, being able to go out and raise any real capital with any confidence. It hurts the stock price immediately. So now they have to even raise even more. Meanwhile the government's standing there saying, you know what, why don't we just convert our shares into common stock.

FREDDOSO: Yeah, yeah.

GLENN: Which is a back door to nationalization, which is exactly what we're doing now with General Motors.

FREDDOSO: No, that's the data that was announced, in fact, that that would happen, it was very little notice by most people, but the market absolutely swooned with that news. I think it was two weeks ago or maybe early last week. But yeah, I just found out my bank failed the stress test.

GLENN: David, I mean, here's the thing that I don't think that people really understand, that we're seeing everything in the light of an emergency, but when the emergency goes away and they turn on the regular white lights, which have all been converted to fluorescent light bulbs, so it's that real sterile awful white light, you'll see exactly what we have left. And in the blink of an eye, we have taken control of the financial sector and that ain't going away. We're taking control of General Motors, and that ain't going away. And now we're about to do it in the cover of darkness with healthcare.

FREDDOSO: Yeah. No, that's you know, in fact, what the Democrats plan to do in congress. And it's slightly complicated but it's very interesting. They want to use a tactic that would limit debate, prevent amendments and prevent a Senate filibuster, and it's called budget reconciliation. The purpose of budget reconciliation is actually to save money. It's to make the government's bottom line look better, but they are actually going to do its that they can they are going to use this tactic to enact a major new policy. You won't see much it's on a level that's unprecedented. You can say, okay, the Republicans used this to pass President Bush's tax cuts in 2001, they use it to do welfare reform. It's been used to do policy things in the past, but this is something that is massive and means a takeover of about 17% of the U.S. economy. So the fact that they are going to do it this way, it really just shows, hey, we don't care, we won the election, we're going to flex the muscle and, you know, I guess it's a risk they are willing to take but it's definitely an abuse of a Senate procedure that's designed to save money, not to create massive new expenses.

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

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.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

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.