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.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.

"We'll be DAMNED if we're going to let five MEN—including some frat boy named Brett—strip us of our hard-won bodily autonomy and reproductive rights," tweeted pro-choice organization NARAL.

“Now, I don't know much about Kavanaugh, but I'm skeptical because his name is Brett," said late night show comedian Stephen Colbert. “That sounds less like a Supreme Court justice and more like a waiter at a Ruby Tuesday's. 'Hey everybody, I'm Brett, I'll be your Supreme Court justice tonight. Before you sit down, let me just clear away these rights for you.'"

But as Glenn Beck noted on today's show, Steven Colbert actually changed the pronunciation of his name to sound French when he moved from South Carolina to Manhattan … perhaps to have that certain je ne sais quoi.

Watch the clip below to see Colbert attempt to explain.

Colbert's name games.

Desperate as they are to discredit Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, progressives have come up with a brilliant new angle for their attacks on President Donald Trump's candidate: his "frat boy"-sounding first name.


This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Before the President left for Europe this week, he issued a pardon to 76-year-old Dwight Hammond, and Hammond's 49-year-old son Steven. If those names sound familiar, you might remember them as the Oregon cattle ranchers who were sentenced to five years in prison for setting a fire that spread onto a portion of federal land in Oregon. In 2012, the jury acquitted the Hammonds on some, but not all of the charges against them, and they went to prison.

After serving a short term, the Hammonds were released, only to be sent back to prison in 2015 when the Obama administration filed an appeal, and a federal court ruled the Hammonds had been improperly sentenced.

RELATED: 3 Things to Learn From How the Government Mishandled the Bundy Standoff

It was the Hammonds being sent back to prison that sparked an even more famous standoff in Oregon. The perceived injustice to the Hammonds inspired the Bundy brothers, Ryan and Ammon, to storm onto the Malheur wildlife refuge in Oregon with other ranchers and militiamen, where they engaged in a 41-day armed standoff with federal agents.

The presidential pardon will take some time off the Hammonds' five-year sentences, though Steven has already served four years, and his father has served three. The White House statement about the pardons called their imprisonment "unjust" and the result of an "overzealous" effort by the Obama administration to prosecute them.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

The pardon is the second major move President Trump has made since taking office to signal greater support of residents in Western states who desire to see more local control of federal lands. Last December, Trump signed the largest rollback of federal land protection in U.S. history when he significantly reduced the size of the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah.

Critics say President Trump's actions will only encourage other fringe militia groups in the West to try more armed standoffs with the government. But have these critics considered Trump's actions might just have the opposite effect? Making citizens in the West feel like the government is actually listening to their grievances.

It drives the Left totally insane, but President Trump knows how to play to his base.

Artful Hypocrisy: The double standard is nauseating

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Max Mara

All right. Prepare to jazz snap, because what you're about to hear is perfect for the nauseatingly pretentious applause of the progressive crowd.

For one, it centers around an artwork titled "untitled (flag 2)" by German artist Josephine Meckseper. Smeared with black paint and the engraving of a striped sock, which according to the artist "takes on a new symbolic meaning in light of the recent imprisonment of immigrant children at the border." The German-born artist adds: "Let's not forget that we all came from somewhere and are only recent occupants of this country – native cultures knew to take care of this continent much better for thousands of years before us. It's about time for our differences to unite us rather than divide us."

RELATED: The Miraculous Effect Disney's 'Snow White' Had on a Downtrodden America

It frowns out at the world like some childish, off-brand art project. Sponsored by the Creative Time Project, the art project is part of a larger series titled "Pledges of Allegiance," in which each artist designs a flag that "points to an issue the artist is passionate about, a cause they believe is worth fighting for, and speaks to how we might move forward collectively." Most of the other flags have clouds, blank canvas laziness, slogans like A horror film called western civilization and Don't worry be angry, as well as other heavy-handed imagery.

"The flag is a collage of an American flag and one of my dripped paintings which resembles the contours of the United States. I divided the shape of the country in two for the flag design to reflect a deeply polarized country in which a president has openly bragged about harassing women and is withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and UN Human Rights Council."

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully.

As much as we may not like it, or agree with it, at least these artists are protesting peacefully. They are expressing their opinions with their right to free speech. We don't have to like it, or condone it, or even call it art, but we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we didn't at least respect their right to freedom of speech. I mean, they'll probably be the same people who throw a tantrum anytime someone orders a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A, but that's their problem, isn't it? We're the ones who get to enjoy a chicken sandwich.

There is one problem with the flag. It's being displayed at a public university. Imagine what would happen if a conservative art collective stained rainbow flags and called it an art project and raised it on a flag pole at a public university. Or if the University of Texas raised a rebel flag and called it art. And there's the key. If conservatives and libertarians want to be political on campus, do it under the guise of art. That'll really steam the preachy bullies up.

Last Monday night, President Donald Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Over the coming weeks, we will get to witness a circus with politicians and the media competing with each other to see who can say the most outrageous thing about the candidate nominated and highlight who they would have nominated. We will then witness the main event – the hearings in the Senate where Kavanaugh will be asked questions with an agenda and a bias. Below are 6 things he (or any future nominee) should say, but will he?

Ideology

The folks in media on BOTH sides are looking for a nominee who shares their ideology. Our friends on the left want a nominee who is liberal and many of our friends on the right want a nominee who is a conservative. As the next Justice of the Supreme Court, I state clearly that while I have my own personal ideology and belief system, I will leave it at the door of the Supreme Court when I am working.

The idea of a Justice having and ruling with an ideology is wrong and not part of the job description – my job is to review cases, listen to all arguments and base my sole decision on whether the case is constitutional or not. My own opinions are irrelevant and at times may involve me ruling against my personal opinion.

Loyalty

Loyalty is a big word in politics and politicians love to demand it from people they help and nominate. As the next Justice, I should state I have no loyalty to any party, any ideology, or to any President; even to President Trump who nominated me. MY loyalty only belongs in one place – that is in the Constitution and in the oath I will take on a successful appointment; which in part reads, "

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Loyalty to anything but the Constitution is going against the wishes of America's founders and not part of my job description.

Role of Government

During any confirmation hearing, you will hear questions from politicians who will bring up cases and prior rulings to gauge what side of the issue they share and to see how they rule. Would Kavanaugh show the courage to highlight the Constitution and remind those in the hearing that he won't always rule on their side, but he will enforce the Constitution that is violated on a daily basis by Congress? He should use the opportunity of a hearing to remind this and future governments that the Constitution calls for three co-equal branches of government and they all have very different roles on responsibilities.

The Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of Congress – there are 18 clauses under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants certain powers to the legislature and everything else is to be left to the states. If Congress passes a law that is not covered under those 18 clauses, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional? Likewise, the Constitution is very clear when it comes to the role of the Presidency. The role of the President has grown un-Constitutionally since President John Adams and 1797 Alien & Sedition Act. If any President acts outside the clear boundaries of Article 2, or decides to pass laws and act without Congress, would he vote against it and define it as unconstitutional?

Damaged Constitution

Will Kavanaugh point out one of the worst rulings of the Court - the ruling of Marbury v Madison in 1803? This increased the power of the Court and started the path of making the Court the sole arbiter and definer of what is and is not constitutional. We saw this with President Bush when he said (around 2006/2007) that we should just let the Supreme Court decide if a bill was Constitutional or not.

This is not the government America's founders had in mind.

Every two, four, and six years, new and returning members of Congress take an oath of office to preserve, defend, and protect the Constitution of the United States. Every member of Congress, the President, and the nine justices on the Supreme Court hold a duty and responsibility to decide on whether a bill is Constitutional or not.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government.

America's founders were very clear about having three co-equal branches of government. It's time members of Congress and the President start to take their oaths more seriously and the people demand they do.

It is wrong for someone to abdicate their responsibility but it also puts Americans in danger of tyranny as the Supreme Court has gotten many decisions wrong including the cases of Dred Scott, Korematsu and Plessy v Ferguson.

Decision Making

If you have ever listened to any argument before the Supreme Court, or even read some of the decisions, you will notice two common threads. You will notice the Constitution is rarely mentioned or discussed but what we call precedent or prior case law is discussed the most.

Will Kavanaugh clearly state that while he will listen to any and all arguments made before him and that he will read all the rulings in prior cases, they will only play a very small part in his rulings? If a law violates the constitution, should it matter how many justices ruled on it previously, what precedent that case set, or even what their arguments were? Would he publicly dismiss this and state their decisions will be based largely on the actual Constitution and the intent behind our founder's words?

Role of SCOTUS

Lastly, will Kavanaugh state that there will be times when they have to make a ruling which they personally disagree with or that will potentially hurt people? Despite modern thinking from people like Chief Justice Roberts, it is not the job of a Supreme Court Justice to write laws.

The sole job is to examine laws and pass judgment on their Constitutionality. A law can be passed in Congress and can have the best and most noble intentions, but those feelings and intent are irrelevant if it violates the Constitution.

Conclusion

When you watch the media over the coming weeks, how many of these points do you think will be debated on either side? When you watch the confirmation hearings, do you think Brett Kavanaugh will make any of these points?

Lastly, put yourself in the Oval Office. If you knew someone would make these points, would you nominate them? Would your friends and family?