Glenn Beck: Why gas is so expensive

GLENN: You know, you might be asking yourself every time you go into a gas station, "Gee, why are gas prices so high. That's really weird." Now, Bob says there's enough oil, and there is enough oil. There's currently not enough oil for the demand but there's enough oil out there and if you want to know why there's not enough oil out on the market, let's just look back for a second.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton pulled the plug on leasing the outer continental shelf? Yeah. Me, either. I have a life. But it was back in 1998. Maybe, you know, maybe you weren't paying attention to what intern he was stooping and rolling around on the presidential carpet with. But you remember the argument back then. Clinton's affairs with fatties isn't affecting his job performance. He's still getting things done. And you're right. All of these areas were subject to a 1998 presidential withdrawal oh, that's so loaded a presidential withdrawal from leasing in 2012, okay? So in 1998 President Clinton said you can't lease anything here for oil until 2012, and there are just a few places here: Washington, the entire state; Oregon, the entire state; Northern California, Central California and Southern California. The eastern Gulf of Mexico except for a portion of land. The South Atlantic, the Mid Atlantic, the North Atlantic, all national marine sanctuaries. All of these are indefinite. The Olympic Coast, Cordell Bank, California, Monterey Bay, California, the Gulf of the Farallones, California, the Channel Islands of California; the Flower Bank Gardens Gulf of Mexico, Straits of Florida and the Florida Keys, Gray's Reef South and Atlantic, Monitor Mid Atlantic, Stellwagen Bank, North Atlantic. Gee, I wonder why prices are so high for gas. That's weird, isn't it? This isn't to excuse congress from their responsibility because they started their moratoriums back in 1982, stopping the leasing in 1982 of Central and Northern California. Then in 1984 it was Southern California. Then in 1990 the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska. Then in 1991 Washington, Oregon and the Florida Panhandle. Gee, I wonder why gas prices are so high. It's weird, isn't it? And this isn't to excuse the Republicans. The administration says they're for all of these things, with the exception of the Alaskan Aleutian Basin which hasn't been included in the ban since 2004. Gee, I wonder why gas prices are so high. But it's not like the outer continental shelf is important to our energy needs. That's what the Democrats yesterday said in a subcommittee when they killed going to the outer continental shelf. It's not that important, it's really not that much, we've got other things we can do. And actually with all of the bans, it still provides 30% of outline domestic oil production, which is more than we import from any other nation on the planet. Do you have that? The part that we have opened, it provides 30% of all domestic oil production, more than we import from any other nation.

By the way, the Government estimates that the outer continental shelf, the one they said no to yesterday, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable and that's with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into yesterday.

But what about the environment. This is from the Government again. This have been no spills over 1,000 barrels in 15 years of the outer continental shelf drilling. The National Academy of Sciences found that the offshore industry is among the safest industrial activities in the United States. Outer continental shelf operations are more than five times less likely to cause a spill than oil tankers who are importing oil. You listen to this next time one of these environmental pinheads talk to you about the risks of drilling. You remember these words. Imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. Let me say it again. Imports present an environmental risk of spills 13 times greater than domestic production. And, natural seeps account for 150 to 175 times more oil in the ocean than outer continental shelf oil and gas operations. Natural seeps? Natural seeps? Now we know who the real polluter is, that evil wench mother nature. Yet it's the environmentalists who continue to dictate our energy policy. Gee, I wondering why gas prices are so high. It's weird, isn't it?

Obama yesterday said the price of gasoline isn't the problem. $4 a gallon for gasoline isn't the problem. The high price of oil is not the problem. The problem is it's just risen too quickly. Oh, okay. Now I want to vote for you. How fast has oil risen? Grab onto your seat. On 9/11 oil was $27 a barrel. Do you remember how everybody was freaking out after Katrina? "Oh, Katrina, that spike is going to kill us." Oil was $70 a barrel in that spike. We're now almost double that. And from the same government that tells us we don't need more oil, that we don't need to go in and drill in the outer continental shelf, we don't need to go in and get the shale, we don't need to go in to ANWR. We don't need any of this oil. We don't need to build nuclear power plants. We don't need to take our coal and turn it into oil. We don't need any more refineries. From that government, the same government, the Energy Information Administration in its annual energy outlook in 2005 projected that oil prices would reach as high as $52 a barrel in the year 2025. I'm sure those cap and trade estimates that John McCain and Barack Obama, I'm sure cap and trade that they are all in love with, those estimates from the EPA of only $1.50 per gallon increase, I'm sure those are totally accurate, just like the idea of paying $52 a barrel for oil in 2025 is.

By the way, in today's newsletter we're going to give you the highlights of this monologue and we're also giving you the name of the weasels in Washington yesterday that said no to the drilling in the outer continental shelf. We have the names. It was, what a surprise, it always amazes me how the Democrats and the Republicans are split evenly. All the Democrats see it one way. All the Republicans see it another way. Is there an honest soul in America that's actually serving in our capitol. Time to let them know. We'll give you the names on our free e mail newsletter today at GlennBeck.com.

By the way, you know, I can't get past the fact, there's a couple of things. The writings of Thomas Jefferson and the writings of James Madison, all of these things, they are so fresh today and we've been working on something with Fusion Magazine. Please, please, we worked on this issue of Fusion Magazine longer than we've ever worked on any other Fusion Magazine. We worked on this one for six months doing research on it. We've had the best professors, the best American historians in the country help us put this together. Compare the views of Barack Obama, John McCain with the views of Karl Marx and our founding fathers. On the issues of today. Find out how far we've drifted. Go to GlennBeck.com and sign up for Fusion Magazine. It's next month's issue of Fusion Magazine. It is totally devoid of opinion. This is just a voter's guide to see, where do you stand on the issues and where do our politicians stand.

Barack Obama promised to radically transform the United States, and he did to an extent. But he dropped the radical posse and surrounded himself with people from within the system --- like the Clintons -- once he was elected.

But that's not what presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has in mind. He's no Swedish-style socialist. He's a radical, revolutionary communist who has surrounded himself and his campaign with people who openly advocate for Marxism and even support authoritarian governments.

On Wednesday's radio program, Glenn Beck broke down the biggest differences between former President Obama and highlighted just how dangerous Comrade Sanders' vision for America's future really is.

Watch the video below:



Don't miss Glenn Beck's special, "Bernie's Radicals: The Fires of Revolution," 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.

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

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.