Glenn's Favorite story of the Month

GLENN BECK PROGRAM


BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

GLENN: Here's what you just need to know from today's news, from the Associated Press. Midwest corn boom threatens sea life. This is quite possibly my favorite story maybe of the month. Jefferson, Iowa: Because of rising demand for ethanol -- now remember, ethanol's good. It's good for the environment. It's a renewable source. We could put ethanol up. It's good. "Because of the rising demand for ethanol, American farmers are growing more corn than anytime since World War II, and the sea life in the Gulf of Mexico is paying the price. The nation's corn crop is fertilized with millions of pounds of nitrogen-based fertilizer." Nitrogen-based fertilizer, isn't nitrogen-based fertilizer crap? Just, I'm just saying. "When that nitrogen runs off the fields in corn belt states, it makes its way to the Mississippi River and eventually pours into the Gulf where it contributes to a growing dead zone, a 7900 square mile patch so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate. The dead zone was discovered in 1985 and has grown fairly steadily since then, forcing fishermen to venture further and further out to the sea to find their catch. For decades fertilizer has been considered the prime cause of the lifeless spot. With demand of corn booming, some researchers feel the dead zone will expand rapidly with the devastating consequence. We may be coming close to a tipping point," says Matt Rota, a director of resource program for the New Orleans-based Gulf Restoration Network, an environmental group. The Gulf ecosystem might change or collapse as opposed to just being impacted. Environmentalists had hoped to cut nitrogen runoff by encouraging farmers to apply less fertilizer and establish buffers along the waterways but demand for corn-based fuel additive ethanol has driven up the price for the crop which is selling at about $4 a bushel, up from a little more than $2 in 2002. That enticed American farmers, mostly in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota to plant more than 93 million acres of corn in 2007, the most since 1944. They substituted corn for other crops and made use of land not previously used in cultivation.

Got it? So our solution has now caused another problem. This is exactly why I say the solution to global warming is to do nothing. Don't do anything. Government, get out of the way. Let the public -- first of all, ethanol is not the answer. Ethanol takes 80% of the energy, 80% of a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of gas. How stupid is that? What are we thinking? We'll be the only society in history to burn up our food supply. Just so stupid.

Here's another thing. I love this. The arrogance of scientists. It has been 50 years since the first scientists first created DNA in a test tube, stitching ordinary chemical ingredients together to make life's most extraordinary molecule. Until recently, however, even the most sophisticated laboratories could only make a small snippet of DNA. An extra gene or two to be inserted into corn plants, for example, to help the plants ward off insects or tolerate drought. Now researchers are poised to cross a dramatic barrier, the creation of life, driven by a completely artificial DNA. This is according to the Washington Post. Scientists in Maryland have already built the world's first entirely handcrafted chromosome, a large looping strand of DNA made from scratch in a laboratory, containing all the instructions a microbe needs to live and reproduce. In the coming year they hope to transplant it into a cell where it's expected to boot up to life itself. Like software downloaded from the Internet. Well, let me go with that software downloaded from the Internet. I'm sure there's never anything destructive in any kind of flawed software that you just download from the Internet and put into a cell or a system and boot it up. What are we thinking? I would personally like to buy every scientist a ticket to go ahead and see "I Am Legend." May I? I saw the beginning of that thing and then I slept for part of it and then I saw the end of it. Let me tell you something. The scariest part about I Am Legend is that's exactly how it will happen. The scientists that are like, oh, gee. I mean, life, there was no intelligent design there. I mean, "look at us. We're designing life and there's no intelligence in here (laughing.)".

I mean, so they go and design life. In "I Am Legend," what they do is they cure cancer. Design something that will cure cancer. No, that's at the very beginning. It's in the first two minutes. Not even -- it's before the title. "We've cured cancer." Look at us. Whoa." So what you are saying is, yes, we finally found a cure for cancer. They created life that will eat cancer. Unfortunately in the movie it turns you into a vampire. Now, I'm pretty sure we'll create vampires because you'd have to be a moron to stitch in the fang chromosome, you know, right into the DNA strand, but is there any doubt that that's the way we're all going to -- you know, if you know anything about the so-called end times, whether the end times happen or not, I don't know. But if you read about them, what is one of the big things? Plagues. Plagues.

Look what we've got going on. We've got all kinds of nasty stuff just boiling under the surface already that we can't control and we want to create new life? Am I the only one who thinks -- is there a scientist within the sound of my voice that says, yeah, thinking about that now, that's probably not a good idea. I mean, we always think that they -- oh, this one is going to be good. This one's good. Okay, sure, we've made horrible mistakes, but creating life, mistake there.

See, if you just think that life just happened, well, then I guess, you know, you have more intelligence than the universe did. "That just happened. I'm designing it. So it's got to be better." The arrogance of science.

(Lobster Gram commercial.)

GLENN: So we'll go to the phones here in a second. Stu, are you watching the Pat Robertson thing?

STU: Yeah, because the words, you know, get scrolled up on the screen here in the studio. We have it set like that. So I'm reading your comments and I just saw you write, unlike Keith Olbermann, Media Matters doesn't write what I say on air.

GLENN: I was on with Pat Robertson this morning. I haven't seen it yet. Does it look all right?

STU: Actually you look hot. I think this is one of your -- this is a good look for you. I like the --

GLENN: Wow.

STU: I mean, is that not what you were asking?

GLENN: No, I --

STU: Well, I mean, I can't deny it. I mean, you look like --

GLENN: Sarah, go on in.

STU: Sarah, come on. Look at this. I think he looks good today. He looks rested, you know?

GLENN: I got three hours sleep last night, huh?

SARAH: I think you look good all the time.

GLENN: Yeah, see?

STU: It is Christmas bonus week.

GLENN: It is. It's Christmas bonus day.

STU: It is Christmas bonus day.

GLENN: Which explains you now, suspicious.

STU: No way.

GLENN: All of a sudden, you look hot, Glenn.

STU: I don't know what you're talking about. I think you look good.

GLENN: It was weird about --

STU: Your abs look tight, you know.

GLENN: Okay, stop.

STU: Obviously you've been lifting a little.

GLENN: Dan, you would never do that, would you, on Christmas bonus day?

DAN: No way. That is a nice tie you picked today, by the way.

GLENN: Thank you.

DAN: I'm just being honest.

GLENN: My publicist was with me and for some reason I don't -- I think this is the first time I've ever met him.

STU: Really?

GLENN: Yeah. I didn't even -- I pay the guy like I don't even know how much and once in a while I'll just call in. Do you still work for me? He's like, yep. He called last night. He said, I'd like to go into the Pat Robertson thing and I said, okay. So I meet him there and afterwards he said, I was a little uncomfortable with, you know, you saying that, you know, you pray.

STU: You pray for America every day.

GLENN: "You pray for America." And he was like, I don't -- I said, it's the 700 Club. If I can't say I pray on the 700 Club, where can you possibly say it? "I don't know. You should keep that to yourself." All right. I'm going to disregard that advice. He's better off, he's got a longer career with me if he doesn't show up. Just don't show up and you have a better chance of staying on the payroll. "Yeah, you should -- the prayer thing, I don't know. A lot of people think that God thing is weird."

STU: It's a trend, you know? Obviously it comes and goes.

END TRANSCRIPT

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.