Glenn Beck: I love you, you love me...



Glenn Beck's American Revival


Glenn Beck's American Revival is a daylong event where you can find information, inspiration, and the preparation to help turn this country around...


 - Tickets now available!

GLENN: Van Jones was given an award from the NAACP and in it, in their acceptance speech at the very end he gave a shout out to me. Do you have the whole ending of

PAT: Uh huh. Of the speech?

GLENN: Here's Van Jones speaking about me at the end of his acceptance speech at the NAACP.

VAN JONES: The last thing I want to say is this: To my fellow countryman, Mr. Glenn Beck, I see you and I love you, brother. I love you, and you cannot do anything about it. I love you, and you cannot do anything about it. Let's be one country. Let's be one country. Let's get the job done. Thank you.

GLENN: Okay. Van Jones, you love me, I love you, we're not on an episode of Barney. I appreciate the fact that you love me and as my eternal brother, I love you as well. Now, it's never been a personal thing and I don't know why you are wanting to make it a personal issue, but it's not a personal thing. Never has been. I was somebody who didn't want you fired.

Everybody thinks, everybody thinks it's great that I, quote, got you fired. I didn't get you fired. The well, everyone would claim that you just left because you had other things to do. Nobody wanted at the time to claim that you left in shame or anything else. You were just going elsewhere, weren't going to be a part of it. I said at the time that was a huge mistake because it's about dialogue. And I know you love to have dialogue. I know you love to talk about the things that you believe in. And that's why I'm glad that you're back in the spotlight because I do want to talk about one country. The question is which country do we want? The country that you're looking for is very different than the country I understand. It's a country that is very different than the country that most people understand. You, sir, are a self avowed communist. You are somebody that wants to fundamentally transform America, and you're doing it through the guise of green jobs. Now, you can talk about love all you want, and I can love you right back, and I see you, Van Jones. I see you. And I love you, too. But the job that you're doing is in the cover of darkness. Mine is wide open. You know my agenda. I say it every day. I say it loudly and clearly, and I get an awful lot of heat for it. I don't get awards for what I say. You do. I don't get teaching jobs at universities. You do. So please don't try to play the victim here. You cover up what you say; I do not. One of us has the courage of our convictions. The other may have courage of their convictions but for some reason is cloaking all of those convictions. Now, I personally think it's because the people you're surrounded by, the progressives, have convinced you that their way is the best way of getting it done. You and Bill Ayers and Jeff Jones, all the radicals from the Sixties and the new radicals like you, the ones that are revolutionary, communist revolutionaries, the people that were in STORM, the people that want to overthrow the government. You've been convinced that the president and his advisors are just like you. And maybe it's because of my theory that they knew who you were before you got into anywhere near the president. Before you took your green jobs czardom. That was my theory... until this weekend.

This weekend Van Jones was on CNN and Van Jones was asked the question: Did they know, did the president know who you were before you arrived?

VAN JONES: I was fully candid, I mean, about my past, about the ideas that I have explored. I was a midlevel White House staffer. I reported to a Senate confirmed nominee. Midlevel White House staffers go through a vetting process, a process that's very, very rigorous. But I wasn't a cabinet secretary. I was a worker in the White House. Some people decided to give me this crazy title of green jobs czar in the media. I don't know if you remember this. I came right out and said I'm not the green jobs czar. I'm the green jobs handyman.

GLENN: Mmm hmmm. So they knew exactly who he was. Well, I'm sorry. If I have somebody who is a Marxist revolutionary who's standing up and saying that, you know, Mumia Abu Jamal was right for blowing the head off Danny Faulkner, a cop, I don't think I have him even emptying the garbage in the White House. If I have somebody who appears to be, although we can't ever trace anything down because people just don't seem to have the courage of their convictions, they just don't want to say these things out loud. But we're pretty sure that Van Jones was a member of STORM, which was a radical communist revolutionary front. We're pretty sure he wrote the book on STORM, but we can't confirm it. It's like the Invisible Committee, the communists that are writing books over in Europe. They tend to stay undercover. Why? Because that way they can hold their powerful positions and remain unseen and unknown. But with the resources of the White House, you'd think that they would be able to find all the things out that we have found out about Van Jones and it would give you pause. Now, did you notice that he said they knew everything and all of my positions that I have explored. No one will ask him if he is still a communist. No one will ask him if he has rejected communism and rejected Marxism, if he now believes in the free market system. Because he has said in the past that the free market system doesn't work. His joke was, "How's that capitalism working for ya, huh? How's that capitalism workin' for ya?" But then as the green jobs I'm sorry. Because it wasn't the

VOICE: Ho, ho, ho, green jobs czar.

GLENN: We had to correct it. It was...

VOICE: Ho, ho, ho, special advisor for green jobs at the White House council on environmental quality.

GLENN: Okay, that's what he was. So as he's the green jobs special advisor to the... whatever, he says we're going to go away from this capitalism thing. I don't want to quote him and get him wrong. So I'll let him actually say the words himself.

VAN JONES: One of the things that has happened I think too often to progressives is that we don't understand the relationship between minimum goals and maximum goals. Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said, okay, now we want reparations for slavery, we want redistribution of all wealth and we will to legalize mixed marriages, if that had been there, if they had come out with a maximum program the very next day, they would have been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum program: You know, we just want to integrate these buses. The students came up with a very minimum program: We just want to sit at the lunch counter. But inside that man demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1954 to 1968, you know, complete revolution was on the table for this country and I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages. Right now we're saying that we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to some kind of eco capitalism where, you know, at least we're not, you know, fast tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond existence of exploitation and oppression altogether, but that's a process.

GLENN: Okay. So there is the extreme goal. So the question is to the president of the United States, again, the same question: I have no problem with Van Jones, never have had any problems with Van Jones. I love you. Let's send Valentine's cards to each other. My issue, my problem is not with Van Jones. I know who Van Jones is. Case closed. Again, the dialogue needs to happen with the president of the United States.

Play the CNN cut again. Did the White House know who you were?

PAT: Got to go back to it.

GLENN: Oh, jeez. What kind of audio vault do you have?

PAT: One where you have to switch back and forth.

VAN JONES: I was fully candid about my past, about the ideas that I have explored.

GLENN: Stop. He was fully candid. So there are no more questions for Van Jones. The question remains again at the White House. Now it was speculation on my part. I said, how is it that we can find these things out but the White House cannot? I speculated based on Valerie Jarrett that she knew because she introduced him and she said we've been following him since his days in Oakland, California. That's when he was a radical! She spoke of him in high praise and lofty tones when she talked about his time in Oakland, California. So I was pretty sure but now we have no speculation. Now we have verification. So we're done with Van Jones. Because now we have verification the White House knew. They knew exactly who he was. So the question now needs to be asked of the president of the United States: You knew he was a radical, you knew that he was a Marxist, you knew that he was an avowed communist. You knew he was a man who called for revolution. You knew that he was a man who called for these things and then in his own words found the green movement and knew that that was the way to accomplish his communist goals. You knew that he was standing up for a cop killer. Mumia Abu Jamal who killed a cop at point blank range by shooting them in the head. Danny Faulkner is his name. You knew these things, Mr. President. According to your ally and your friend and one of the most important people in American history, a national treasure according to the NAACP. You knew these things. Is that who you are? Do you agree with those things? You won't talk to tea partygoers. You dismiss them as kooks and crackpots and they have nothing to say to you. But people who are avowed communists, back cop killers, call for revolution, say that the green job program is a cloak for a real radical end? What is your radical end, Mr. President? We know now what Van Jones' radical end is. What is yours? Do not be distracted by Van Jones. This is not the target, nor has it ever been the target of inquiry. The target of inquiry is President Obama. Period.

 

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.