Glenn Beck: Who to support in Texas

GLENN: I understand it is a firestorm in Texas because of an interview that happened on this program yesterday. There's a candidate that really is, I mean, I can't believe that, I'd like to see poll numbers here in the next few days. It was the candidate that was coming on strong. We put this candidate on the air because we remember hammered by their supporters and I was sick and tired of being hammered by their supporters, quite honestly. Please don't, don't try to bully us or intimidate us into having a candidate on. We don't do local politics usually. The reason why I decided to finally have them on is because she went from 4% to, what was it, 24%, 26%?

PAT: Uh huh.

GLENN: In the latest poll, and she was catching up to, a couple of points away from Kay Bailey Hutchison who I think is another story because she's now using my words apparently, Kay Bailey Hutchison, in ad campaigns and these phone call things. Do not listen to Kay Bailey Hutchison if she's trying to make it appear as I'm endorsing her because I am not. I'm not endorsing anybody. So here comes Medina supporters. They write, they write, had them on, I don't really care. So then she starts to be a real candidate and I watch her ads and she's saying I'm a candidate just like you. And because she's a tea party like candidate and I've seen Perry in action I shouldn't say that. I've seen Perry from a distance. I've liked him every time I've spoken to him, but Pat lived in Texas for how many years?

PAT: Eight.

GLENN: And Pat's not a fan of Rick Perry and so he's tainted my views on Rick Perry. As Stu pointed out yesterday, I have no experience with Rick Perry other than good experience. However, Pat has told me what it's like to live with Rick Perry, and he says one thing in election, says another thing later. Okay. So I want to get her on. She's a tea party candidate. She's one of the people. She starts the interview and I said to her, so tell me a little bit about yourself. I think one of her first sentences is, well, I'm a grassroots organizer for the Republican Party, I worked for the Republican Party for, like, ten years. And I'm immediately not interested. Because that's not what I mean, that's not what I expected to hear is somebody who's saying, I'm just like you. I don't even want to know Republican organizers. Just not what I expected to hear.

We had also, at the time when we announced that I was going to have her own, I think I announced it two days ago and I said we're going to have her on, hammered, hammered by people writing in saying she's a 9/11 Truther. No way I believe she's a 9/11 Truther.

PAT: We just wanted to give her the opportunity to dispel that rumor.

GLENN: I wanted to I had two, I had two questions I wanted to ask. Didn't even get to the second one. I wanted to ask her if she was a Birther because that's what everybody says the tea parties, "Oh, these people are crazy. They are all Birthers." Really? Are they? So I wanted to ask her if she was a Birther, expecting her to say no. Didn't ask her that question. Maybe somebody in the press should ask her. I couldn't get past the question, are you a 9/11 Truther. Here's the response. Do we have the audio? Here's the response. Sarah, do we have the audio?

Do you believe the government was any way involved with the bringing down of the World Trade Centers on 9/11?

MEDINA: I don't, I don't have all the evidence there, Glenn. So I don't I'm not in a place, I have not been out publicly questioning that. I think some very good questions have been raised in that regard. There are some very good arguments, and I think the American people have not seen all of the evidence there. So I've not taken a position on that.

GLENN: Whew.

PAT: Totally unexpected.

GLENN: I followed it up and I said, be more specific, and it just got worse from there. Here's the thing. Now I'm being accused by her supporters of making too much out of one issue. A 9/11 Truther. Really, one issue? That's what we hear from the same people who dismiss Kay Bailey Hutchison because of her abortion stance or Rick Perry over the trans Texas corridor. Really? They are the ones who are saying, "You can't dismiss the trans Texas corridor, you can't dismiss the abortion thing," but we can dismiss the 9/11 Truther thing? A person who is standing up and look, I am all for states rights. I'm for property rights. She said all of the right things when she was talking about the Constitution. I'm all for all of that stuff. But when you have somebody saying we've got to push away from the federal government, how far do you want to push away from the federal government? Because if you haven't done the math in your head and you think there's a possibility that our government isn't just bad, it's evil and don't start with me on, it's a necessary evil, even George Washington said it was a stop. Stop. They didn't just kill 3,000 people if you are a 9/11 Truther, you believe that they didn't just kill 3,000 people. They also could have killed 30,000 people, 100,000 people. How many people could have been in that building? So please. That one particular issue to me is enough. It may not be for you. I'm not voting in Texas. You are.

Some issues are make or break issues, but if that's not a make or break issue for you, fine, vote for her. That's a deal breaker for me. Abortion is another one. Healthcare reform, another one. Game breakers. For those of us, anybody who is accusing us of sandbagging Debra Medina, do you really think that really? I don't have anything else better to do? If you listen to this show, you know how much we've discussed the problems with Perry and Hutchison to the point where both of those campaigns have been hounding us over the comments on, I mean, Kay Bailey Hutchison is now using comments after hounding us saying, what you want to Rick Perry... (mumbling). Please, Rick Perry's campaign, it's my understanding that they were on the phone with the office in New York screaming, how could we have Medina on, at the time that she was on? Really? Hey, Perry campaign, you all upset at us now? If you listen to the show, you know one of the themes is question with boldness. I didn't think that was that bold of a question. I thought that was a softball question. When we keep hearing that she's a Truther or surrounded herself with Truthers, don't you think you should ask? She couldn't answer it, at least not to my satisfaction. If you're mad at somebody, quite honestly you should be mad at her. She could have said no. She could have said yes. Instead she dodged or equivocated. I mean, all you people who are saying, "Oh, it's not that big of a deal," you better question your own values on whether you're a Truther or not. And if you are, let me say it again. That's fine. I'm not trying to shut down anybody's free speech. You want to question with boldness? Is there a bigger questioning with boldness than that? "I think our government blew up the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon." Yeah, there's no bigger question you can ask.

PAT: Questions have all been asked and answered but if you want to, go ahead.

GLENN: And if you believe that, you have a responsibility to continue to ask that question. And to continue to stand up for yourself. Just don't do it in the cover of darkness.

Our founding principles need to be restored. I really, truly believe Texas is one of our last best hopes to help restore those principles. Occasionally we'll provide a forum for the great people of Texas to learn more about somebody that could help them do that. I just, I keep getting phone calls, why don't you talk about politicians more? When every time we do, this happens. You have a choice. You can do what the progressives do and blindly follow any candidate off a cliff because you belong to the party, because that's our best chance of winning. I don't care if we win. I don't have a team. I'm fighting for the Constitution and I think you are, too. I want an American candidate with American values to run for office. I don't need to agree with them on everything. But for me, hmmm, the government blew up the World Trade Center, Bush was a killer. I think that's a deal breaker. We just need to find out who these people are and what they believe because it's easy to run an ad campaign that says, "I'm just like you." No, no. As I found out yesterday, no, she's not, uh uh. No, really not just like me.

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.