Glenn Beck: Jobless claims 'unexpectedly' rise

GLENN: Holy cow, I'm just getting this from CNBC. Initial claims for unemployment benefits increased 31,000 to 473,000, labor department said today. Also the department showed prices paid at farm and factory gate rose faster than expected, 1.4 from December after a .4% gain in December. When you have the PPI moving up and no progress in the jobs situation, that doesn't bode well for continued improvement in equity prices. So you know, this is the worst recession in seven decades. The economy has lost 8.4 million jobs, excuse me, 8.4 million jobs. The PPI report may give investors who keep a wary eye on inflation following massive efforts by the Federal Reserve to pull the economy out of its worst slump since the 1930s is something to worry about. The bottom line is the Fed is going to have some decisions to make at its next meeting because inflation is now back at the table. About 3/4 of the increase last month was due to a 5.1% jump on food and energy goods, said the department. Strong energy prices, blah, blah blah. Stripping out the volatile food and energy core prices, producer prices raise more than expected, blah, blah blah.

I love this. I love the inflation index where they can say, well, let's I mean, if you don't look at food and energy, it wasn't that bad.

PAT: Who needs those two things.

GLENN: I mean, it's just, it's crazy.

PAT: I just

GLENN: Hang on just a second. This is, by the way, an annual inflation rate of 16.8%. 16.8. I want you to also realize what I told you on television last night that England also, all of the experts, the Central Bank, everybody in England said, don't worry, we can spend this much money, we can print this much money, don't worry about inflation, don't worry. And all of a sudden inflation is coming barreling down the road. We're repeating all of the mistakes of England, all of them.

STU: Is this why Bernanke was saying the other day I mean, you are way smarter on this stuff than I am. Is this why he was saying we're probably going to have to raise rates soon is because he sees this stuff coming?

GLENN: Yes, but just listen to this. He is saying that we're going to have to raise rates soon for a couple of reasons. And this is, the market is not going to allow this to continue, period. The bond market will not allow it to continue. That's why China dumped bonds. They are no longer our biggest holder of foreign debt. It's now Japan. That should have been the front page story all across America. The number one holder of all bonds is the Federal Reserve. With $5.1 or $5.6 trillion of American debt. That's taking money from one pocket and putting it in the other. This is a game that's being played. So China is saying to us, you know what? We don't trust you guys. They didn't stop buying the bonds, our treasury debt. They didn't stop buying them. They also sold them! So you know what? We've got to distance ourself a little bit. That was the first telegraph saying, stop, stop what you're doing right now because you are in their thinking you're dishonoring our money, our loans and our people's honor. It's not a good situation to be in. So to get people to go back in and buy our bonds we have to raise what they're going to get. Look, we don't take out 30 year mortgages on this. This isn't sitting out there for three years. Some of this stuff is three months, six months, twelve months, three years. It resets; we're the kind of people, we're buying a house on an adjustable mortgage. And in three months a trillion dollars can come up and we have to go back to the bank of China, back to Japan, back to whoever loaned us money and say, hey, we need this trillion dollars again for another three months. It's a revolving loan. Well, now that people say, no, no, we don't trust you guys, they are going to ask for a higher interest rate. They are going to say, we're taking too much of a risk. What are you going to pay us to take this risk? You think they are going to take 3%? No. Because they don't think they are going to get their money back. 5%? 8%? 10%? 12%? 18%? At some point it will be those numbers.

PAT: Well, wait a minute. If they don't think they are going to get their money back at 3%, then they should charge us no percentage rate of interest so that we have a better chance of paying it back. Isn't that kind of how it works right there?

GLENN: That's the kind of logic that the people in Washington would use. So we have to give them more money for borrowing. It's just like a credit card company. Why are you paying 24%? Because you have good credit? No. So that's our borrowing situation, our spending situation. But to be able to stop inflation, you have to suck the money back in that we've printed. Remember this whole thing was push the money out, push the money out, get people to spend, get people to buy more stuff, get that money into the banks and have the banks flood it out into the system. Well, there's too many dollars. That causes inflation. Too many dollars chasing too few of goods.

So what do they do? To get those dollars back into the treasury so they can be destroyed, they have to have the banks charge more. Let's just say you borrow $100. If you have a 0% interest rate, it means you get $100 and it's free. When you pay it back, you just pay back $100. If they want you to take out more loans, they will say, you pay us $1 on the $100 loan. So you owe us $1.01. Because your credit is bad, it could go up to $20, 20% interest rate. $20 for every $100 you borrow. It's either that your creditor is bad in the case of an individual, or the way the Fed works. They bring that money supply back in. And so what they say is we're going to charge the banks 8%, 12%, 20% we'll use that, 20% to lend that money out to you. So the bank says, well, I've got to make some money, too. So I'm going to make it 24%. The bank makes their 4% of doing business with you, but the 20% goes to the Fed. That's where they destroy that money. They burn it up. And it sucks all of that money back in. That's when they expand and contract the money supply. That's the theory of the Fed. But the Fed is supposed to be responsible enough to be able to not flood it too much that they could never pull it back. As they told you a year ago, they are going to have to pull this money back and that's the moment of decision. The moment the Fed says we have to raise interest rates, that's when money is harder to get. Remember we're an economy 70% on consumption. So that means it's going to be harder for you to get a loan. That means it's going to be more expensive to do business. It's going to be harder on your credit card. The price of money goes up. Which means Americans will spend less. It will mean that business expands slower, if they expand. They can't get a loan to go ahead and expand this portion of their business. So what happens? It slows down the economy. Well, if you are on the precipice of collapse, you cannot slow the economy down. This is exactly the situation of the Weimar Republic. The politicians and the Central Bank of Germany got together and they had inflated the money and they were in this position. And the central banker looked at the politicians and the politicians said, you can't do this, there will be riots in the streets. It will shut the economy down. And everybody will lose their job. And the central bankers said yes, but if we continue to go this path, you are going to have hyperinflation and then you'll never be able to stop it. And the politicians said, well, do you know that for sure? Are you sure there's nothing we can do? And the Central Bank said, well, not that we I mean, it's never ended any other way. But I mean, I mean, does anybody have any suggestions? Well, there's got to be something, I mean, maybe something. We know that the economy will stop if you pull the money back in, right? Yes. And we're not sure that some miracle's not going to happen and this will give us more time to be able to figure out something that will work, right? "Well, yeah, but nothing is going to there's no way to do." But I mean, there's a possibility. I mean, right? That's the position we're now in, and it is the position that every Banana Republic goes through. And this is when you need a politician that has the courage to not sign an executive order and say, well, let's look into what our economic future is, somebody who knows and somebody who stands up and tells the American people, guys, we are going to lose jobs, we're going to lose a lot. But if I'm going to be a one term president, that's fine. We must save the monetary system. We must save the republic. And it's going to mean that we're going into a depression, but that's because everyone has lied to you. You can't have everything. And we are at the moment of decision. Do we save the republic? Or do we hope for a miracle that somehow or another the laws of finance break down on the coast of North America. And this is just a special place where mathematics no longer work. Magic works. This is it. Once the Fed says we're going to raise interest rates, our money lenders will say, whew, good. They will save themselves eventually, as long as we are also cutting taxes and spending. And when I say taxes and spending, I'm not talking about, hey, get some tax cuts for the poor and what I'm talking about staggering tax cuts, staggering. And when I say cuts on spending, I mean staggering spending cuts. What was it Greece had to reduce their debt to GDP in the next three years? Do you remember that number? It was thrown out in a meeting I think this morning. It was some don't quote me on this because I know this isn't right but it was like 60% or 133% of GDP, their debt to GDP needed to go down to, what's it like 60% or 30%?

STU: It potentially may have been 60 from 133.

GLENN: It has to be cut in half.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That is our future. And California, New York, citizens of America understand this. Your politicians are lying to you right now about your state politicians are lying to you about the pension funds because they know they are going to be bailed out. The pension funds.

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.