Glenn Beck: 'The Future of Energy' according to Boone Pickens

GLENN: So I'm sitting there with T. Boone and I said, so how much role is speculation.  He said it's -- he said they play a role but it is not a significant role.  And I said, but they're -- I mean, there's enough money out there.  He said, Glenn, first of all, understand one thing.  Production currently is at 85 million barrels a day.  So we have 85 million barrels.  He said, the demand is at 87 million barrels a day.  So we are two million barrels short every single day.  He said, since those two lines have crossed, it is supply and demand.  That's why it's going up.

Now, he's also a believer in peak oil.  There's a chapter in my book on peak oil and if you're a real, you know, freak on the program, you might have noticed that that's the only chapter that I have not discussed on the air and the reason why is because I put it in there saying that this is a possibility.  However, there's a lot of people that think that peak oil is just, you know, the sky is falling.  So I wasn't sure.  And, you know, I've got enough "Sky is falling" stuff in my life.  I didn't need to tell you that we're running out of oil as well.  But I thought it was important enough credible people that do believe in peak oil that it was a piece of the puzzle that I thought you needed to know and I thought you needed to know as well.  I still don't know if I buy into peak oil.  However, what I do believe in is we are out of cheap oil.  We are out of the, you know, the bubbling crude where, you know, Jed goes out and he's shooting some varmint and all of a sudden up comes bubbling crude?  That's done.  That's over.  The cheap oil is gone.  There's plenty of oil left but it's deep sea oil, it's difficult to get or it's heavy crude.  So it costs a lot more to pull out.  So the days of cheap gas are over.

The other part of that is demand.  With China and India and the rest of the world coming online.  Stu, what was that stat?  I know I'm going to get this one wrong.  There's a stat that China has purchased more SUVs in, like, the last, I don't know, five years or something than we've ever purchased?  It's some ridiculous stat of what China is doing.  China is coming online.  You think they care about the environment.  Not so much.  They are coming online with a vengeance.  So you've got demand going through the roof.  With just demand going up through the roof and cheap oil being gone, you are going to have higher and higher gas prices.

So Boone says to me yesterday -- I said, so do you believe in peak oil?  He said, oh, yeah, peak oil.  He said, some people think it's, you know, 2010, 2012.  Some people think we've already hit it back in the Nineties.  I think we hit it in 2006.  He said, so now we're going to start a slow drift down.  He said we're at 85 million barrels.  He said we're going to start a slow drift down.  And I said, well, then why aren't we going into the ANWR and offshore, et cetera, et cetera.  He said, you can, you should, he said, but that's not going to solve your problem.  He said, it's not going to bring you back to $2 a gallon gasoline because now what you're doing is just filling the gap.  If you're at 85 million barrels now, he said, it's going to start to come down to 82, 81, 80.  He said, so everything that you find now in the ground is going to replace that gap to bring you up to 85 million barrels a day.  He said, hopefully bring you to 87.  But then you have another line of demand and that's going up.  He said, so your gaps are getting bigger and bigger.  So yes, you need to go drill and get everything you can, he said, but you're no longer in the situation where you're going to have a snap back.  Unless demand goes way, way down, you are not going to have that snap back to $2 a gallon.  I said, so wait a minute, you believe that we're going to hit $150 a barrel this year.  He said yes.  We got off the air -- this was in the first break.  We got off the air and I said, so Boone, $150 a barrel by the end of this year, when does this break the back of the economy?  And he looked at me dead serious and with all soberness and said, we're there.  He said, we're at an emergency.  He said, just, nobody will talk about it.  Nobody will recognize it.  Nobody will say it.  We're at a full-fledged energy emergency right now.  He said, we need an Eisenhower highway project.  We need somebody with vision.  I said, so wait a minute.  Why is it that the people that we have in power aren't going there?  He said, I have no idea.  And he told me a story about going into the White House and meeting with George Bush.

Now, they're friends, Bush is an oilman, Cheney is an oilman and Boone sat down with them and said, Mr. President, you do not want ethanol to be your legacy.  It doesn't work.  Bush said, I know I don't want the legacy of ethanol.  He said, here's the plan.  Here's the plan.  Boone laid everything out.  For some reason they agreed in the meeting that it was a good idea that, you know, these are the different things that have to be done.  He said he gets out of the meeting and we go with ethanol.  He said, now, I don't know what happened, I don't know why that decision was made, I don't -- you know, he doesn't -- no idea.  But it doesn't work.  So I said, okay, you're into wind.  Wind doesn't work.  He said, no, wind doesn't work in Germany, it doesn't work in Spain, but it can work in certain places on Earth.  He said one of those places is in Texas and up through the middle of the country.  He said there's all kinds of studies that show that.  And I said, well, you're getting in -- you just bought 667 wind turbines from GE.  This guy's a multibillionaire.  I said, you're going to build these wind turbines.  I said people will say you're just trying to get rich, you are just trying to get everybody on wind.  He said, well, first of all, I'm not trying to get everybody on wind.  He said that's just one piece of the puzzle.  He said, the second argument is I'm just going to get rich?  So funny.  He looked at me, this 80-year-old man.  He said, I'm a billionaire.  I'm rich enough.

So we finished the break.  We finished our conversation on the air.  And he looked at me and he said, you got five minutes for me?  And I said, yeah.  He said, do you have a piece of paper, pencil?  Said sure.  He said, let me show you something.  And he sketched it out.  In fact, I sent it -- I asked for it to be sent to the website.  Can you check and see if it's on the website?

STU:  No, Glenn.  Because we can -- we can generate power from wind but I can't get my laptop to turn on.

GLENN:  Why can't your laptop turn on?  I think my -- do I have -- yeah, I have Internet.  Why can't you get your laptop to turn on?

STU:  I can't get my laptop to turn on, not to get the Internet.

GLENN:  Not to get the Internet, to turn on.

STU:  Yeah.

GLENN:  What kind of --

STU:  Well, I've had it for three weeks.  So you figure --

GLENN:  You have the worst technology luck of anyone I've ever seen.  Why have bad technology?

STU:  I don't understand why I believe in it so much.  I think it's the solution to a lot of our problems.  Yet when I use it, it never works.

GLENN:  Here on the front page of GlennBeck.com in the headlines section it says something like, the future of energy according to Boone Pickens.  Okay.  This is what he drew for me last night.  We're sitting there and he says, do you have a piece of paper, a pencil?  I said yeah.  So he draws this.  It's not going to make any sense to you.  Do you see it, Dan?

DAN:  Yes.  It looks like "A Beautiful Mind."  It really does.

GLENN:  I asked him to date it and sign it.  I'm framing it for my office.  Here's what's important.  He went over this with me.  And you see the little pie chart of the coal and the 20% and 22 and it's moved over?  It says 38%, blah, blah, blah?  This is a combination of all of the energies.  This is wind-power, solar power, hydrogen power, coal power.  The number you need to care about is just about simple things we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 38%.  He said I can reduce oil by 38%.  Here's what's important, the reason why I'm framing this.  I have heard this theory from so many people.  I have heard this combination from David Neeleman who is so frustrated with this country that he's now -- not with this country -- with this government that he's now built a new airline in Brazil because he knew energy was going to be a problem.  He spent two years on the energy problem, met with the President, met with the secretary of energy, met with all these people, met with GE, met with everybody, everything with a similar system to this.  Couldn't get it done.  T. Boone writes this out and he says, this is with a we need to do.  The percentages may be different, but it's the same damn plan.  And he's met with the President, he's met with the secretary of energy, he's met with all these people.  He can't get it done.  I've met with the environmentalists who aren't crazy, I've met with oil companies that aren't crazy, I've met now with T. Boone, I've met with several executives of major airlines.  I have met with the heads of GM.  They are all saying the same thing, just different percentages.  The question is why isn't it being done?

The FEC is bad. The House of Representatives isn't doing anything to make it better.

When it passed H.R. 1 by a vote of 234-193 on Monday, Congress attempted to address a laundry list of nationwide problems: rampant gerrymandering, voting rights, and the vulnerability of elections to foreign interference, among other concerns. But H.R. 1, billed as the "For the People Act," also takes a shot at reforming the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It fails.

The FEC isn't good at enforcing the nation's campaign finance laws, and, when it is does, it's often an entire election cycle after the given offense. As it is, candidates don't have much difficulty circumventing campaign finance laws, undermining the fairness of elections and opening the door to further corruption.

RELATED: Lawmakers are putting the death penalty on trial

The FEC was created by the Federal Election Campaign Act following the Watergate scandal, as Congress sought a better way to police federal campaign laws and prevent future presidents from interfering with investigations as Nixon had. The FEC has six commissioners, and no more than three can be of the same party. Four votes are required for most actions taken by the agency, and that hasn't been an issue for most of its history. But since 2008, the frequency of 3-3 tie votes has increased dramatically. It's why the FEC is slow to investigate cases and even slower to prosecute offenses. Supporters of H.R. 1 complain, with good reason, that the FEC has become toothless. But H.R. 1's reforms introduce new and potentially volatile problems.

FEC's rampant dysfunction won't be fixed by H.R. 1— the bill doesn't get at what actually went wrong. Since its inception, the FEC has been able to operate without excessive gridlock, and, for the most part, it still does. At the height of FEC turmoil in 2014, the FEC only had a tied vote 14 percent of the time (historically, it has been closer to one to four percent of the time) on substantive matters, although many of these tie votes occur on matters that are particularly contentious. The greater problem afflicting the FEC is touched upon by NBC Washington's findings that the Republican and Democratic commissioners of the FEC almost always vote as blocs. At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

At various times, both Republican and Democratic commissioners have put party interests ahead of their agency's responsibilities.

H.R. 1's Democratic supporters instead believe the FEC's six-commissioner structure makes it dysfunctional. H.R. 1 introduces a new system of five commissioners —two from each party and one independent, eliminating tie votes. But that independent commissioner's de facto role as a tiebreaker would grant them far too much power. Save for Senate approval, there's nothing preventing a president from appointing an "independent" like Bernie Sanders or Angus King.

The bill's proponents are aware of this problem, creating a Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel that will help inform the president's decisions. But this panel has problems of its own. The Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's decisions are non-binding and not public, a result of its exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures the transparency of advisory committees. There are arguments against FACA's necessity, the panel's deliberate exemption from the law undermines the idea that its goal is to ensure non-partisanship. Instead, H.R. 1 will allow future presidents to tilt the scales of the FEC in their favor, a fate the post-Watergate creators of the FEC were so desperate to avoid they originally had members of Congress picking commissioners before the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Apparently, the solution to excessive gridlock is one-party control.

H.R. 1 also seeks to grant unilateral powers to the Chair of the commission in the name of expediency, again giving leverage to the Chair's party, and allows the General Counsel to take actions independent of commission votes. While some of the FEC's problems, such as its notoriously slow pace and the delayed appointment of commissioners under Presidents Obama and Trump, might be solved with legislation, the consolidation of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the FEC's integrity is not a winning strategy.

The FEC is afflicted by the same problem that has afflicted governments for as long as they have existed – governments are made up of people, and people can be bad. The Founders, in their wisdom, sought to limit the harm bad actors could do once in power, and the FEC's current structure adheres to this principle. Currently, the consequences of bad actors in the FEC is dysfunction and frustration. But under H.R. 1's reforms, those consequences could be blatant corruption.

Michael Rieger is a contributor for Young Voices. Follow him on Twitter at @EagerRieger.

On Monday's radio program, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere discussed former Starbucks CEO and progressive Howard Schultz, a lifelong Democrat who has not only been disowned by the Democrat Party but he can no longer set foot inside of a Starbucks store because of his success in business.

In this clip, Stu explained how at one time Starbucks only sold coffee in bags until Schultz, an employee at the time, convinced the company to open a Starbucks cafe.

Click here to watch the full episode.

At one point, the owners came close to closing down the cafe, but Schultz eventually managed to purchase the company and transform it into the empire that it is today.

Stu continued, describing how Schultz, a lifelong Democrat, went on to implement liberal corporate policies that earned the company a reputation for being a "beacon" of liberalism across the country.

"And now he (Schultz) can't even get into the Democrat Party," Stu said."That is craziness," Glenn replied.

Citing a "60 Minutes" interview, Glenn highlighted the journey that Schultz traveled, which started in the New York City projects and evolved, later becoming the CEO of a coffee empire.

"This guy is so American, so everything in business that we want to be, he has taken his beliefs and made it into who he is which is very liberal," Glenn explained.

Catch more of the conversation in the video below.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

This weekend, March 17, Rep. Rashida Tlaib will be speaking at (Council on American Islamic Relations) CAIR-Michigan's 19th annual "Faith-Led, Justice Driven" banquet.

Who knows what to expect. But here are some excerpts from a speech she gave last month, at CAIR-Chicago's 15th annual banquet.

RELATED: CLOSER LOOK: Who is Rep. Ilhan Omar?

You know the speech is going to be good when it begins like this:


CAIR-Chicago 15th Annual Banquet: Rashida Tlaib youtu.be


It's important to remember CAIR's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Think of CAIR as a spinoff of HAMAS, who its two founders originally worked for via a Hamas offshoot organization (the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP)).

A 2009 article in Politico says feds "designated CAIR a co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation, a group that was eventually convicted for financing terrorism."

The United Arab Emirates has designated CAIR a terrorist organization.

In 1993, CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.

In 1998, CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad said:

Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.

Notice the slight underhanded jab at Israel. It's just one of many in her speech, and is indicative of the growing anti-Semitism among Democrats, especially Tlaib and Omar.

Most of the speech, as you might expect, is a long rant about the evil Donald Trump.

I wonder if she realizes that the Birth of Jesus pre-dates her religion, and her "country." The earliest founding of Palestine is 1988, so maybe she's a little confused.

Then there's this heartwarming story about advice she received from Congressman John Dingell:

When I was a state legislator, I came in to serve on a panel with him on immigration rights, and Congressman Dingell was sitting there and he had his cane, if you knew him, he always had this cane and he held it in front of him. And I was so tired, I had driven an hour and a half to the panel discussion at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus. And I sit down, my hair is all messed up, and I said, 'Oh, my God, I'm so tired of this. I don't know how you've been doing it so long Congressman. They all lie.' And he looks at me and he goes. (She nods yes.) I said, 'You know who I'm talking about, these lobbyists, these special interest [groups], they're all lying to me.' … And he looks at me, and he goes, 'Young lady, there's a saying in India that if you stand still enough on a riverbank, you will watch your enemies float by dead.'

What the hell does that mean? That she wants to see her enemies dead? Who are her enemies? And how does that relate to her opening statement? How does it relate to the "oppression" her family faced at the hand of Israel?

Glenn Beck on Wednesday called out Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) for their blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric, which has largely been excused by Democratic leadership. He noted the sharp contrast between the progressive principles the freshmen congresswomen claim to uphold and the anti-LGBTQ, anti-feminist, anti-Israel groups they align themselves with.

Later this month, both congresswomen are scheduled to speak at fundraisers for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a pro-Palestinian organization with ties to Islamic terror groups including Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State.

Rep. Tlaib will be speaking at CAIR-Michigan's 19th Annual Banquet on March 17 in Livonia, Michigan, alongside keynote speaker Omar Suleiman, a self-described student of Malcolm X with links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Suleiman has regularly espoused notably "un-progressive" ideas, such as "honor killings" for allegedly promiscuous women, mandatory Hijabs for women, death as a punishment for homosexuality, and men having the right to "sex slaves," Glenn explained.

Rep. Omar is the keynote speaker at a CAIR event on March 23 in Los Angeles and will be joined by Hassan Shibly, who claims Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations, and Hussam Ayloush, who is known for referring to U.S. armed forces as radical terrorists.

Watch the clip below for more:


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.