Glenn Beck: Can you say conflict of interest?

GLENN: Okay, so I haven't figured this out. Let me go to, let me go to Pat and ask him. Pat, have you noticed that Toyota is testifying now in front of congress?

PAT: I have.

GLENN: Mmm hmmm.

PAT: Mmm hmmm.

GLENN: Isn't congress the owner with the American people of Toyota's two big competitors?

PAT: Yes. Yes, they are.

GLENN: So isn't this like the board of directors of General Motors calling Toyota to testify in front of them on television and demanding that they explain why their cars are so bad?

PAT: Oh, and they're angry, too. They're, they are outraged about this situation.

GLENN: Are they?

PAT: Yeah. Oh, yeah. As you could imagine let's say I mean, if ExxonMobil called Shell to testify before them, they are a little upset with their business practices.

GLENN: Have you heard anyone talk about this yet?

PAT: No. No, I haven't.

GLENN: How come?

PAT: I don't know.

GLENN: How is that completely missed?

PAT: Everybody's talking about just the, you know, the brakes and the acceleration and all of those things and nobody's ever seemed to even notice: Oh, and by the way, these are the owners of GM and Chrysler and they are taking another competitor.

GLENN: These are the people that are running it, these are the people that own it, these are the I mean, we have don't you see the moral hazard that we're in now? Our congress has no credibility when they call, for instance, any bank to testify. You are going to call let's say they call a collection of small local banks to testify. Who are you to tell me this? You're the competitor. You are CitiBank. You are trying to put us out of business. You are Bank of America. Who are you to call me, Toyota? I mean, this is the quite honestly this is the attitude I would take. I mean, you wouldn't win and my shares would fall and, you know, Toyota would be out of business, but that's why I'm not running Toyota! But that would be the attitude I would take. Who are you? The owners of General Motors and Chrysler? And you're telling me to explain myself in front of you? You are my competitor!

PAT: It would at least be worth bringing up, wouldn't it? I mean, if you didn't even say it with a nasty attitude, could you at least bring up the inappropriateness of the whole procedure?

GLENN: Yes, I think you could. I think you could.

STU: There's a story in The Wall Street Journal today, too, talking about how these cases of recalls are typically handled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, but the Toyota case was led by Obama transportation secretary Ray LaHood. If it's going to be coming from the normal area and the journal goes into, too, about how a lot of people who have big union money are all the people calling for all this. That's not to say that Toyota didn't do something wrong and that they should you know, they obviously had some serious problems there but the way it's going down

GLENN: What is the problem? Because they seem to have first they had first they had gas. Then they had brakes.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Then they had something else.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: That's odd that Toyota's having all of these problems.

PAT: All of a sudden.

STU: Yeah, I think it's an all of the above thing and I don't think that they are denying they are having the problems.

GLENN: No, no, I'm not saying they are denying at all and I'm not saying they are having the problems.

PAT: But this all goes to your point, Glenn, in the inappropriateness because the government got themselves into the situation. Their credibility is gone. And so to have these kind of moral authority, who are you?

GLENN: They have none. This is, you know, an impossible, impossible situation now.

Now, I just want to throw something out here. Apparently it's a chip problem. Have we verified this yet?

PAT: They don't know.

GLENN: That it's a brain problem in the car. We had a we have a watchdog who is at one of the bigger software chip manufacturers in the world and this guy's pretty I mean, he is an "Out there" thinker, but he's pretty reliable. This is a theory only. He said, you know, you can fry those chips. You can deprogram those chips, and it's an odd thing that those chips would have these problems if this indeed is the problem. There is now a theory that is going on that some competitor took and this is corporate sabotage.

PAT: So somebody's, like, shooting some sort of ray gun at these people?

GLENN: I don't know. Whoa. You have a ray gun?

PAT: I have a ray gun.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: I disabled the brakes on 1400 cars.

GLENN: Turn your radio off if you're driving!

PAT: 812 now.

GLENN: The ray gun is getting you!

PAT: 3,282 cars.

GLENN: Stop, stop!

PAT: 4806 cars are now in trouble.

GLENN: What model? What model?

PAT: All models, all makes appeared models.

GLENN: All right. So

PAT: Just, it's in a certain city. I'm not going to even name which one.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: That's 5,312 cars now.

GLENN: So here is the, here is the idea, that a competitor is this is corporate espionage or corporate sabotage. Somebody's going in and disabling these chips. I don't know if that is a legitimate theory at all.

PAT: Now, is this theory by competitor, is he talking about, you know, GM and Chrysler?

GLENN: I have no idea. No, no, I have no idea. He is not assigning a blame anywhere. He is not assigning. He is just saying that this can be done. If it is a brain problem with the car, it can be done. It could be a competitor that took Toyota out.

STU: I guess anything's possible. Doesn't seem particularly plausible.

GLENN: You know, I don't know if it's I mean, he wasn't suggesting this, that it was, you know, it was Van Jones at night with the... with the ray gun in the library! He's not, you know, he's not suggesting that, nor am I. But when you get into a competitive situation, you want to make sure that our government never, ever looks like they are using something to help themselves. And now congress is on the hook for GM. Nobody by highlighting Toyota's problems, they are helping American made cars. By highlighting Toyota's problems, nobody notices that the guy who helped Rahm Emanuel make $16 million in a separate deal, who didn't have any car experience at all and then later Rahm Emanuel pushes up the ladder and gets him to be the CEO of General Motors just got a $9 million bonus. For what? Is General Motors fixed? Are they I mean

STU: It's getting fixed quickly with this news.

GLENN: Oh, it's fixed.

STU: Isn't this a great lesson to

GLENN: Like my dog has been fixed.

STU: Isn't this a great lesson, too, for environmentalists, I mean actual real environmentalists? Environmentalists, the hero of government and environmentalism was Toyota. And the bottom line is when it comes down to government power and money, that's going to trump your cute little leaf on your dashboard. Like it doesn't if you might be really the person who's out there fighting for a greener planet but the government, when they when it comes down to their pocket books and their power, you are going to become a pariah to them. You are going to become the enemy whenever they can make you the enemy if it comes down to money and power.

GLENN: Remember, remember when we talked about 24 a couple of days ago and we said look what was happening on 24?

STU: Uh huh.

GLENN: And everybody was always like, "Oh, no, no, okay, sure, my ex boyfriend beat me up and I went to jail because of him. But if I just help him this one time, he'll leave me alone"? No. Congress is your ex boyfriend that used to beat you up. That's who congress is. They will never change their stripes. It is government, as George Washington says, is a necessary evil. These guys will always that's why there's restraints on power. They will always go bad. Just know that going in. That's why we restrain their power. That's why we keep them as small as we can. That's why we have checks and balances. Once you get rid of the checks and balances, these guys are going to run roughshod over everything.

STU: Yeah, you don't want to let anyone get power like that into the wrong hands just like you don't want to let a ray gun get into the wrong hands.

GLENN: Jeez, how many

PAT: 6,497 vehicles.

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.