Return to Transcripts main page

GLENN BECK

Has Pastor Scandal Hurt Obama in Polls?; Oil Exec Explains Real Economics of Big Oil

Aired April 30, 2008 - 19:00:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GLENN BECK, HOST (voice-over): Tonight, the chickens come home to roost for Obama. Just how badly will the Reverend Wright scandal hit Obama`s chances to win the White House? And can he live in the White House? Will Jeremiah Wright allow him to? Just saying.

Plus, the Fed cuts interest rates again. I`ll explain why this is actually a bad thing for America.

And from racy photos of a teen idol to raunchy ads for a popular teen drama, society is leading our children all down the wrong path. I`ll explain the dangerous consequences and more tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Hello, America. We`ve got a great show for you tonight.

But I`m going to start with Barack Obama. Tonight, I have more questions than I have answers. I mean, we`ve had weeks to discover that Reverend Jeremiah Wright has spent decades preaching radical anti-American ideology. And yet Barack Obama expects us to believe that that`s a different man than the man Barack Obama has known the last 20 years. I for one just don`t buy it.

Now what we have to do is wait and see if Obama and Wright continue to -- I mean, it`s like a chick fight on Dallas. Isn`t it? And is the reverend`s 15 minutes of fame over or is Obama`s fame over?

Here`s "The Point" tonight. If I had to call it, I`d have to say sorry, Barack, I think your chickens are coming home to roost. And here`s how I got there.

You know, my mother used to tell me, show me your friends and I`ll show you your future. It is amazing to me that Obama thought he could actually get away with having spent 20 years soaking up Reverend Wright`s hateful sermons and not be held accountable for the company he keeps.

You know, I know this election scene seems never-ending. I mean, kill me with a shovel, please. But you know what? It has given us a good time to shake out the sheets and see what worms were in there. You know, vet the candidates a little bit, especially the new guy, like Obama.

It`s more than just what a candidate says; it`s also what they`ve done, how they lead their life. You know, we`ve all made mistakes. I get it. I`m far from perfect. You don`t even want to know the mistakes I`ve made.

But when Barack Obama keeps making the same mistake over and over and over again, Sunday after Sunday for 20 years, that`s more than just a slip. It shows a fundamental lack of judgment. I believe it calls his character and his ability to lead into question.

I mean, if you watch the show, you know I wasn`t going to vote for the guy anyway. But just over a week ago, he was arguably the dominant candidate in the Democratic race. That`s a little far from that today.

A couple of days ago, I heard Jack Cafferty on CNN. He said when Reverend Wright gave the speech at National Press Club, he did more damage in one hour to Barack Obama`s chances at the presidency than Hillary Clinton had done in the last 15 months. Jack, you`re right.

So tonight, here`s what you need to know. The best way for voters to know what kind of decisions a candidate is going the make in the future is to look at the ones that they have made in the past. If Barack Obama couldn`t see what kind of man Reverend Wright was over a 20-year period, he`s a shamefully poor judge of character.

How does he expect us to trust him when he has to go meet with Ahmadinejad, Castro, Chavez, all the men, you know, he says he wants to meet? Trust his -- where did I put that trust? Oh, yes, I`m all out of trust for any politician. You haven`t deserved any, Obama, for quite some time.

Now, has this resulted in any change in the polls? Scott Rasmussen is here. He`s the president of the Rasmussen reports.

Scott, have you seen any kind of indications at all this is affecting Obama?

SCOTT RASMUSSEN, PRESIDENT, RASMUSSEN REPORTS: It`s starting to have an impact right now. And you`ve got to remember, there have been two phases of the Jeremiah Wright story. There was the first phase about a month ago before Obama gave his speech. The initial impact was to hurt Obama`s standing among unaffiliated voters and white voters.

When he gave his speech, he got good reviews for that, and things stabilized for a while. But the last couple of nights we started to see a decline in Barack Obama`s favorability ratings and an increase in Clinton - - among Clinton supporters that their candidate really is the more electable Democrat.

BECK: Are you seeing anything on judgment or honesty because he`s either the worst judge of character or he`s a liar, one of the two?

RASMUSSEN: Well, actually, what we are seeing most of all, through the last month is just a general and growing discomfort with Barack Obama, that he might not be the candidate that people thought he was early in the process. We`re seeing a perception that he may be more of a traditional, political, liberal Democrat.

Right now, the difficulty is trying to get a handle on where things will play out after his denunciation of the last few days.

BECK: Scott, you`re a numbers guy. I have always -- I mean, I know this sounds counterintuitive, but with the radio show years ago, everybody said, you`re going to get on the radio, and the ratings are going to skyrocket. And I said I don`t want that. I want -- I want a very slow, steady growth because that way you have something stable.

He really became white-hot fast. I mean, he was practically the messiah, assuming there was one. He was practically the messiah to the press. Have you ever seen anything that goes up as fast and doesn`t come down?

RASMUSSEN: No, there`s always going to be a difficult time, and you have it just right. Hillary Clinton is the exact opposite. Whatever you think of her opinions, established, she can come on your show right now and it wouldn`t change public perception.

BECK: No.

RASMUSSEN: But with Barack Obama, any little thing can change the public perception, because he is not very well known. And there`s another fact. He has never ran a competitive campaign against a Republican. He is in uncharted territory. And that`s a pretty interesting problem for him.

One final tidbit, last year, when he began his rise in the early part of the campaign it was because he raised so much money. And last year, after the first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama`s numbers began to fall among Democrats. He doesn`t do debates well.

BECK: And real quick, was there any bounce-back after this first Jeremiah Wright or did he lose those people?

RASMUSSEN: He lost those people. When he gave his speech, he held the rest.

BECK: All right. Let me -- thank you very much, Scott.

Let me go to Ann Coulter now. She`s a syndicated columnist and author of "If Democrats Had any Brains, They`d Be Republicans." But I don`t know if that`s even true any more, Ann. I mean, look at the Republican Party. They might be conservatives. I don`t know if they would be Republicans.

Here`s something in "The New York Times" that I read. And I love this.

ANN COULTER, AUTHOR, "IF DEMOCRATS HAD ANY BRAINS, THEY`D BE REPUBLICANS": This will be fun.

BECK: This was today`s editorial. "We hoped Obama`s speech on race would open the door to a serious, healthy and much-needed discussion on race. Mr. Wright has not let that happen. In the last few days, in a series of shocking appearances" -- yada, yada, yada. Talking about him embracing Louis Farrakhan.

How -- do they read the newspaper? How are they shocked by the things that he said?

COULTER: I wrote a column a few years ago, describing how much fun I thought it would be to be a liberal, because everything that happens will constantly be an exciting new surprise. "The New York Times" is constantly shocked.

BECK: They are. They`ve been shocked with Hillary Clinton. They were the ones that came out and said, "Oh, my gosh. The Clintons just make things up for political purposes." And they were shocked by it.

COULTER: An impeached felon took the ottoman.

BECK: Right.

COULTER: Remember that one.

BECK: Yes. I just don`t -- I don`t understand it. I mean, I look at this and I see what happened. And I said yes, this is what anybody who didn`t have a horse in this race could see.

COULTER: Right.

BECK: And you knew. And I have to tell you, I wonder now, is Obama going to be Gary Hart? Is he going to be just gone from this? Is it going to implode? Or will the American people embrace this?

COULTER: This is -- I don`t think they`ll embrace it, but that`s the big question. Because I must say, I have been feeling like so far in this race, it`s 1992 all over again. Remember the scandals with the Clintons. It was draft dodger, pot smoking, Gennifer Flowers.

Yes, this is worse. But, you know, then they look and see who`s left. And it`s Hillary. And half of the country hates Hillary.

COULTER: You know what? As uncomfortable as you are with Hillary Clinton or I am with John McCain, you are with John McCain, it is not somebody who says, "Hey, I`m going to sit with leaders of Iran and Syria and Cuba and Venezuela who hate us. And by the way, my record on judging people is I didn`t think this hatemonger was a hatemonger for 20 years."

COULTER: Right, right. And calls -- and obviously hates the United States. This is the part of the traitor wing of the Democratic Party. And I guess the question is, is Obama a Manchurian candidate to normal Americans who love their country and secretly agrees with the Weathermen and the Reverend Wright faction? Or is he being the Manchurian candidate to the traitor wing of the Democratic Party? And he, I guess, has to take the position now that, "No, I was just trying to hoodwink the traitor wing."

BECK: Like I`m going to...

COULTER: Kind of a tough road to hoe.

BECK: Let me play -- let me play this. This is -- who is this really about please? This is soft one (ph), please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I don`t think that he showed much concern for me. I don`t -- more importantly, I don`t think he showed much concern for what we were trying to do in this campaign and what we`re trying to do for the American people. And with the American people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: I mean, it`s amazing.

COULTER: A little solipsistic, I`d say.

BECK: Yes, if I knew what that word was, I would say yes, you`re exactly right. But I`ll pretend I do.

COULTER: Everything`s about me.

BECK: Yes. I mean, it`s amazing.

COULTER: He has this raving lunatic that he has foisted now on the American people, a racist, anti-American lunatic. And he`s upset that it`s hurt his campaign.

BECK: Yes. I don`t think -- I don`t think that he showed much concern for me.

COULTER: Right.

BECK: Right. Yes, that`s what I got out of that.

Yet the -- the media is giving him a pass. I mean, here in our own building, one of the -- one of the reporters said, you know what? He`s dynamic and smart. And it`s Reverend Wright is -- you know, he speaks five languages. What the hell does that even have to do with anything? They`re giving him a pass yet again.

COULTER: They`re desperately trying to. They did last time. And I have to say, when I started thinking this was 1992. Because Reverend Wright, when they first got the tapes on the scene, I thought that`s it. He`s done. And according to the Rasmussen polls at the time -- this was, I guess, about a month ago -- it didn`t really affect Obama in the race.

I think this next round the media, you really see the division between Americans and liberals in the media. Because the first round, they were all defending him. And oh, what ran down my leg? And now they seem to be treating Reverend Wright a little bit more seriously.

BECK: yes.

COULTER: Because they can see that`s what the American people are thinking. Everybody`s sitting back in shock watching it on TV.

BECK: Tinkle. I just wet my pants. I saw that and I wet my pants.

Ann, thanks. Appreciate it.

COULTER: Thank you.

BECK: Coming up, oil companies are posting record income gains. Oh, no. And critics are saying it`s time for the windfall -- windfall profits tax. I`ll tell you why that`s a bad idea. We`ll sit down with the president of Shell in a second.

And then how does the cost of rising fuel prices affect the airline industry? A guy who brought you the TV in the back of the seats and the etickets and the bulletproof doors on our planes, David Neeleman from JetBlue. Tonight`s "Real Story," coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Coming up, it seems like you hear about the high price of oil reaching a new high every single day. And another airline planning to merge or going bankrupt. Think about that for a second. You think those two are related? Maybe.

What is the future of the airline industry? Tonight, find out the future from a guy who thinks way ahead of the curve, David Neeleman, coming up.

But first a group of companies that are profiting off of our misery right now. A group that is racking up billions of dollars in profits while average Americans struggle to pay for food to fill up their gas tanks. Of course I`m talking about big grain. Yes, big grain, rolling in cash because of skyrocketing food prices, even if people around the world are rioting for grain.

For example, company Bunge -- or Bungee -- which sells fertilizer and processes grain, they posted profits of almost $300 million last quarter. Nearly 2,000 percent increase from last year. Where`s the outcry? Where`s Chuck Schumer? Why isn`t he doing a press conference in front of the tractor? Why isn`t Hillary Clinton demanding that the government take big grain`s windfall profits?

I want you to keep those questions in mind as I tell you that Royal Dutch Shell, you know, big oil, just reported their first quarter earnings increased 25 percent to $9.1 billion. The nerve of a company to earn money by selling a product that people want.

Yet, the more these oil companies report -- and buckle up, because ExxonMobil is tomorrow -- the more outrage seems to grow. But I have to tell you, I`m the capitalist. That`s not the number that we should be paying attention to. We should look at the profit margin. I`m a guy who appreciates success. And I think it`s a pretty sad day in America when, instead of celebrating profits, you`re forced to justify and explain then.

John Hofmeister is the president of Shell Oil.

John, first of all, I want to ask you an honest question. Have I ever taken a dime from you at big oil?

JOHN HOFMEISTER, PRESIDENT SHELL OIL: I hope so.

BECK: I`m open. You can send it my way any time you want.

Nine-billion-dollar profit. Here`s my beef. I don`t think that that`s the number people should -- should concentrate on. They should look at your profit margin. What is your profit margin, sir?

HOFMEISTER: Well, the profit margin is a very average margin of about 7.5 percent. If you looked at -- let`s say, you used the 9.1 number. We also report a cost of replacement of goods, which is like a $7.8 billion number. And it took us $7.8 million on a revenue stream on $114 million. Nobody would say a word.

But change million to billion, the percentage is the same. Everybody gets upset. Because it is a big number. It`s a big number because we`re selling 3.5 million barrels -- that`s barrels, not gallons -- of oil a day into the open markets. And we`re selling some probably 8 million -- 8 million barrels of retail product.

BECK: But here`s the -- here`s the problem, John, I think people see these numbers, and it`s always coupled with this phrase: record profits. It`s always -- and so it only comes out when, you know, we`re struggling at the gas pump and it shows you having record profits.

HOFMEISTER: Record profits. We`re also spending record amounts on capital investment for new developments around the world. We`re also paying record amounts in taxes.

If we go back to the end of 2007, we made $27 billion in profit. We spent $25 billion on capital expenditures in the year. We paid $18 billion in taxes. Which people, a lot of elected officials don`t want to hear that number, because they don`t want to have to deal with it. We returned $16 billion to shareholders. Actually was quite a good year for everybody.

BECK: Let me ask you this. What happens? I mean, Hillary Clinton, it must have made your blood run cold, when you heard Hillary Clinton say she was going to take your profits.

HOFMEISTER: Well, I think it`s for government to decide what to do from a tax policy. You know, I have heard so many different proposals over my time working in this industry that I just kind of roll with it. But one thing that Hillary Clinton has done, which I do appreciate, is she has said in Houston, when other presidential candidates would not come to Houston and speak at a presidential summit, she has said we need to drill for more oil.

God bless her for saying that, because that`s exactly been what I have been saying for last three years.

BECK: Could we be energy independent if we would really use the resources that are under our soil and under our oceans?

HOFMEISTER: Well, over a long period of time, perhaps we could. But what people need to do is separate the future into what we call the short term, let`s say the next decade, the median term and something like the next 10 to 25 years. And then the really long term beyond 25 years.

BECK: Right.

HOFMEISTER: Over the next ten years, we have got to have more hydro carbons. We can`t sustain this economy. We can`t sustain our lifestyle without more oil and gas.

BECK: So how fast -- because people now are interested in Alaska. How fast from first -- them saying yes, to the first gallon at the pump?

HOFMEISTER: Well, it depends upon how many lawsuits we encounter, how many issues we face in terms of legislating degree of difficulty.

BECK: Give me a decent guess.

HOFMEISTER: Twelve to 15 years.

BECK: Holy cow.

HOFMEISTER: Well, that`s a long time.

BECK: Yes.

HOFMEISTER: And we have been under 30-year moratorium in this country.

BECK: For building refineries.

HOFMEISTER: Actually, for exploring in the outer continental shelf. Eighty-five percent of the outer continental shelf has been off-limits for 30 years in this country. No wonder we`re importing more than 60 percent of our oil.

BECK: John, thank you very much.

Coming up, new numbers from the Fed shows another dismal quarter for the housing market. Great. But that doesn`t mean the government should be bailing out homeowners who loaded up on debt or bailing out these companies that made bad loans. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, the Federal Reserve announced today they are cutting interest rates yet again. More free money. Just keep it rolling off the press, guys. This time it`s a quarter percent. That means since summer, they have cut interest rates five times by a total of three percentage points. You can call it whatever you want. But it is printing money. And it`s also nothing more than a bailout all of the things that the Fed has been doing and the government.

They have been bailing out irresponsible borrowers and lenders. They took on more debt or gave out more money than they should have. And now, people are looking out for a handout as a way out. You know what? It`s un-American. This isn`t the capitalist system.

What about those who play by the rules every day? You know, you get up hard. You work hard every day. What do you get, beside higher taxes and a cheaper dollar?

Dick Armey is the chairman of FreedomWorks, which has launched a new Web site called AngryRenter.com.

Hey, Dick, I saw this Web site the other day. I think this is absolutely fantastic. What about people who haven`t been irresponsible? What about people who have been saving up for their 20 percent? Why do we get the shaft?

DICK ARMEY, FREEDOMWORKS: Well, if you take a look at who we are, FreedomWorks, we`re about 800,000 real, live, small-government activists that advocate good policy and fight bad policy.

And this bailout of the irresponsible lenders and borrowers in the home industry is a perfect example of bad policy. We -- we sat around and we said, who would you expect to get angry about this kind of bad public policy? And somebody at our table said, "Well, anybody that`s renting should be angry. They don`t get any kind of a break. They get no bailout. All they get is increased taxes, higher than they would otherwise have to be, to bail out the irresponsible people."

BECK: Right. But it`s not just the renters. Nobody`s going to come to my defense and bail me out. You know what? If I would have know if I just would have borrowed too much money and I could have my -- you know, my house collapse, I would have done it. "OK, oh, you`re going to buy that house for me? You`re going to help me live in a house that I shouldn`t bought in first place?" It`s wrong.

ARMEY: It is wrong. And -- and you know, the fact of the matter is, a free market requires a certain bit of judiciousness, discipline. Most of us worked hard and saved while paying rent to get that 20 percent so we could have a down payment, so that we could make a responsible loan, that we could live with and see through.

If we had equity built up in our home, we left it there while we allowed ourselves to someday fulfill that dream we had for a better house in a nicer neighborhood. That`s the way it went.

Now we have people -- I mean, how many times have you heard the story of somebody getting a house loan who couldn`t otherwise get a car loan at zero down and favorable interest rates for a little while?

BECK: I just read a story today, cities and the government hiring more people, more people than they can afford. They`re just trying to play the numbers game, I really think. What`s it going to take before people wake up and say, "No, stop it"? When can we wake up to some responsibility in this country?

ARMEY: Well, I think -- we have seen this happen in the past. Certainly, in 1994 with the fearful excesses that were being threatened by the early years of the Clinton administration, particularly in health care. They went with the conservative, small-government movement in the Republican Party.

And the nation felt very well served for that -- by that as long as it lasted.

BECK: Yes.

ARMEY: What we need now is angry Americans, angry renters, in this case, to send a message in this country in Washington as they do and sign this petition and we deliver it, that hey...

BECK: I`ve got to run.

ARMEY: ... shouldn`t be doing this kind of stuff.

BECK: Thank you very much, Dick. We`ll talk to you again. Back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well, so far this week, we brought you the story of the scandalous Miley Cyrus photos in "Vanity Fair" and the raunchy, provocative ad campaign for a new CW show, which makes me wonder, honestly, at what point did society, you know, stop teaching its children the importance of building and maintaining strong, stable, loving relationships?

I mean, I`m trying to teach it to my kids. How about you? Right?

They`re running around with this hooking up culture. You know, they`ll hook up with anything that walks upright.

We`ll get some answers on this in just a bit.

But first, welcome to "The Real Story."

It is not much of a stretch, believe it or not, to say that if oil prices stay at this level, then airline travel as we know it will likely cease to exist. People will either be willing to pay several thousands of dollars for a coach class ticket to see their friends and family or they won`t. The airlines will go bankrupt.

But the days of $150 or $200 round-trip tickets cross-country, they`re gone. Quite possibly for good.

"The Real Story" is the airline industry was just not built with hundred-dollar-a-barrel oil in mind. And you don`t have to look very hard to find the evidence.

Delta and Northwest, they proposed merger. They have lost a combined $10.5 billion in the first quarter alone.

United, US Airways talking about a merger. Meanwhile, Skybus, ATA, Eos, MAXjet, Aloha, ATA and Champion have all gone bankrupt. And Italy`s Air Italia is trying to survive by securing a nearly half-billion-dollar loan from their government.

Unfortunately, if things don`t change on the oil front, this is just the beginning. The prices we have been accustomed to paying do not match up with the expenses the airlines incur. From everything from union contracts, to insurance, to jet fuel, to maintenance, simply put, something has to give, and I bet it`s us giving up our seat on that big, fat plane.

So what does the future of airline travel look like? I doubt it`s the flying cars and the supersonic jets and the air bus. I`m just saying.

Is it something less exciting, far more familiar, like, I don`t know, your car or Amtrak? I`m no airline executive, but I am a thinker, so I brought in a real airline executive, David Neeleman. He`s the founder of JetBlue.

David, you are the guy who built the first bulletproof door for airlines. You put the TVs in the back of seats. You came up with the e- ticket. You founded one of the best airlines out there.

I wanted to talk to you about the future of air travel. What is it going to look like? What are we facing with $120-a-barrel oil?

DAVID NEELEMAN, FOUNDER, JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Well, there`s a point at which people are just going to stop traveling. I mean, we as airlines have now started raising fees, adding fees, you know, charging for your second bag, changing -- charging $100 to change your ticket, adding $50 to the ticket. And it just so happens that you have this priority of things you have in your life, like putting your kids in school, you know, driving them there, spending -- you know, everything else is costing more for you now.

BECK: Right.

NEELEMAN: And then at the bottom of the list is going to Florida.

BECK: Right.

NEELEMAN: Or going to see grandma in California. And eventually that`s going to be cut off and the demand is going to start to disappear.

BECK: We have like $200 roundtrip airfare now to Florida. Gone?

NEELEMAN: Yes, that`s gone.

BECK: Forever?

NEELEMAN: Well, unless fuel comes back down. You know, it`s such a significant portion of what the airline ticket is.

BECK: I had a guy in "Forbes" tell me that he thinks the future of air travel is just for the elite and wealthy. And transcontinental or intercontinental trips, maybe a couple of times a lifetime, three times a lifetime? Do you think that`s possible?

NEELEMAN: Yes, certainly there`s going to be a lot less people traveling. Last year, about 850 million Americans traveled. And so many of those people traveled because the fares were lower. And if you take those low fares away, they either will go by car -- and even that`s going to be expensive.

BECK: So does it become like -- I remember in the 1960s, I went from Seattle to Los Angeles. We went to Disneyland. It was the only vacation I remember. And I remember -- I was about this big, and I dressed in a suit, and my dad was in a suit. We were in our Sunday best.

NEELEMAN: Yes.

BECK: Is it -- because right now, it`s like Greyhound with wings. I mean, is it coming back to that?

NEELEMAN: Certainly. I mean, there`s going to be a lot less people traveling the more and more fares go up.

You know, this is the first time ever that I can remember -- because I used to always say, I welcome a recession at JetBlue. They`d say, why? I`d say, well, because interest rates will go down and fuel prices will go down. But if we have $120 oil, or $115 oil and we head into recession, and oil stays high, you know, you don`t have any kind of counterbalance there.

BECK: Right.

NEELEMAN: You know, I thought that the loss of traffic we would have during a recession would be more than made up by lower interest rates on our debt and lower fuel costs. But now we`re not -- we`re seeing lower interest rates, but we`re seeing oil continue to go up.

BECK: You and I have been friends two years, three years. And David, I think the first time I spoke to you, I talked you and I said, I think we`re in trouble with this fuel thing. I think oil is our Achilles heel. And you just vented on me.

And you said, I`m trying to get us to be able to have our own emergency supplier, our own oil stockpile for my company. Weren`t interested. Then you went into -- I think it was six months later, you started talking about cold oil.

This is two years ago. We had you on this program.

NEELEMAN: Right.

BECK: Cold oil. You had it all going where you had six different plants. Right?

NEELEMAN: Yes.

BECK: You couldn`t get the government to move.

NEELEMAN: Yes.

BECK: Then you went to sugar ethanol. You had that. You said, look, we buy this swath of land and we can do sugar ethanol. Nobody would do that.

You have met with the government how many times and they just won`t help? Why?

NEELEMAN: It`s really hard to explain. I mean, the proposal that we had is kind of pegged to $50 oil price a barrel. And even lower. Actually, it started out at $40.

Anything that was below 40, the government would just compensate those. They wouldn`t spend billions of dollars...

BECK: Right.

NEELEMAN: ... to build a cold liquids (ph) facility. And we would have some experimental plans that would figure out the sequestration of CO2, which is a big issue for global warming. And, you know, it`s amazing. It`s just a lack of leadership. You know, you have a lack of leadership in the administration.

BECK: But is it a lack of leadership or is it -- do we have the piece -- I had on Sir Richard Branson on with me, and he was talking about sugar ethanol.

Play the clip from Sir Richard Branson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SIR. RICHARD BRANSON: If the president got rid of importation duties on sugar, there`s enough sugar in the world and enough sugar to be made in the world to produce just a simple-based, sugar-based ethanol which could power 85 percent of all America`s cars within five years. And that`s carbon-neutral.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: He`s saying within five years, there`s enough sugar on the planet to be able to do this. He went and he told me in that interview -- he said, "By the end of the year, I`m going the fly a plane with a mix of biofuels."

NEELEMAN: Biodiesel.

BECK: Right. And he did it.

NEELEMAN: He did.

BECK: Now, he can do it. But it`s not an unwillingness of the people to do it, it`s an unwillingness of the government to move out of the way.

NEELEMAN: I think it`s just lack of vision, you know, and looking at the big picture. And then you throw in the political side of it.

You know, we have a lame-duck president. We have a Congress that`s in a different way. And it just seems like there`s just no vision.

And the rest of us have to sit and look at sovereign funds getting bigger, look at our -- you know, our national security being compromised. It`s really a shame.

I mean, Richard`s right. You know, I spend a lot of time in Brazil right now. And only two to three percent of the non-Amazon -- you know, this is the rainforest...

BECK: Right.

NEELEMAN: ... non-rainforest land in Brazil has actually been planted in sugar cane that can be. And so they are powering themselves.

Every car that`s made in Brazil now, or 90 percent of them, you can put all alcohol, all gasoline, or any mixture you want. The technology exists.

BECK: You know you and I have both had this conversation over a million times. We were talking one time about being suicidal. We`re a suicidal nation.

NEELEMAN: Yes, we are.

BECK: We`re -- I mean, going to be looked back -- people are going to look back and go, they had everything. They had the ingenuity, they had the manpower, they had the resources. They have everything but they won`t do it.

NEELEMAN: Well, you have, you know, a bunch of scientists in Los Alamos laboratories that are working on wizbang (ph) weapons systems. What`s more -- what`s better for our national defense than getting the price of oil down to $50 or $40 a barrel?

BECK: Right.

NEELEMAN: Because with that, the economies of Iran, Venezuela, those things completely fall apart. All the people that hate us now are in serious trouble.

BECK: You told me the last time we spoke that you were frustrated at the time because you were trying to go to the government and say, let -- stop making us be Amtrak. Let us work together as an industry to get the fuel prices down by working together to cut 20 percent of our routes.

Delta, you take those. We`re going to pull out. Right?

And what happened?

NEELEMAN: Well, you know, I just floated this proposal recently, and it`s something that I`ve talked to a few senators about, and they`re willing -- and the idea is that we would get some type of scheduling immunity from the -- right now the Justice Department, if I called up another airline and started to talk about schedules, I could be thrown in jail. But if you could put all the airlines in a room and say, look, we have speculators that are driving up the price of jet fuel -- diesel is dollar more than gasoline now, and it`s because Europe is eating all of our diesel fuel because they have more diesel cars that we do.

If you can get them all in a room and say, OK, everybody, submit your 20 percent cut, and we`re going to keep this 20 percent cut until oil goes below $90 a barrel, immediately the price of jet fuel would go down 50 cents to $1, because the speculators then would be removed because the supply -- the demand would go away. And then we could go back down there.

I mean, who more controls, should control is that who buys it? The end result.

BECK: Right.

NEELEMAN: But now we have this speculator in the middle, these people that are playing with the price, making money on the oscillations of the market. And we`re the ones that have control and we can`t use it because we have this antitrust issue.

BECK: I have 10 seconds. What does the price of oil have to be before the airlines just can`t take off?

NEELEMAN: Before a lot of people stop traveling, it`s getting there. You`re going to see people say, I`m sorry, I can`t come see you. You know, I can`t do it.

BECK: We`re probably close?

NEELEMAN: We`re getting there, yes.

BECK: OK.

David Neeleman, we`ll see you next week.

NEELEMAN: OK.

BECK: Thanks.

NEELEMAN: Thank you.

BECK: That`s "The Real Story" tonight.

Remember, all this week, the only way you can get tickets to my summer comedy political tour -- I know this has been funny lately -- become a Glenn beck insider this week. It`s the only way to see what a Glenn Beck campaign speech would be like.

Yes, head on over to glennbeck.com right now and sign up, become an insider. Get your tickets today.

Coming up, are we teaching our kids that they should go ahead and hook up? Or should they have a strong relationship with somebody? Find out next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You know I have been telling my daughter now -- she`s going on one of her proms. And she`s going on a date. And I said, oh, it`s good, because I`m going to have Marcus Luttrell from "Lone Survivor" over at the house on the night of the prom. And we`re both going to have a little chat with the boyfriend.

Yes. Yes.

She thought I was kidding. Marcus Luttrell is going to be there that night. And we`ll have a grand talk with him.

I would like to just scare the living bat crap out of anybody who even looks at my daughter. But in this culture, I mean, I think I`m alone. I think you and me -- it`s just you and me and Marcus Luttrell fighting that battle.

Look what television has created -- an ad for a teen television show. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody`s ever (EXPLETIVE DELETED) me the way you just did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: The culture has changed. Hooking up is now the new national pastime.

Jennifer Roback Morse is a Ph.D. and author of "Smart Sex: Finding Lifelong Love in the Hookup World." Donna Freitas is the assistant professor of religion at Boston University and author of "Sex & the Soul."

Jennifer, let me start with you.

I have this theory that anything that was tolerated in this generation will be embraced by the next. So, what was tolerated by our parents, which was promiscuous sex, is now just, let`s go all the way wherever we want.

True or false on that?

JENNIFER ROBACK MORSE, AUTHOR, "SMART SEX": Well, it seems to be true. I think the standards are dropping in part because we have embraced a whole set of assumptions about human sexuality that are simply false. And as we move along the path of embracing that and acting out on the assumption -- the assumption that sex is just a recreational activity with no moral or social significance, and that you can do it randomly with no ill effects.

And in fact, any ill effects of promiscuous sex can be handled through condoms. If you just have enough condoms, everything will be fine.

BECK:

MORSE: So those assumptions are false. And as we have problems resulting from that, we try to patch it up with more of the same. And as we do more of the same, of course, the problem gets worse.

And so I think we have a lot of baby boomer parents who have not fully embraced the fact that they were wrong way back in the `70s in college when they were fooling around in the dorms, and as a consequence we`re moving along and the culture is picking up speed, going downhill fast. And we need to go back and revisit those opening assumptions of the sexual revolution.

BECK: Donna, the theme parties that are going on now -- I mean, I`m taking my daughters to colleges now. And I had a professor pull me aside at a major university and say, "You have got a daughter. You have got to talk to her about the problems on the campuses. They`re out of control with these theme parties."

What`s a theme party?

DONNA FREITAS, AUTHOR, "SEX & THE SOUL": A theme party is, I guess, I dub the classic pimps and hoes. And generally they`re parties that place a male, or the man, in a position of power, such as a CEO, or the jock, because apparently only men can play the role of jock. Or the millionaire or the professor, and then puts the woman in the role of the whore, or the cheerleader, or the schoolgirl, or the maid.

And so there`s a very big power differential. And they really take their cues from the pornography industry. And students dress up to go these parties in the roles.

BECK: And they`re also doing "Boink" magazine? What is "Boink" magazine?

FREITAS: Well, "Boink" magazine is a pornography magazine, a student- run pornography magazine at Boston University.

BECK: Student-run?

FREITAS: Yes. It`s a student-run pornography magazine.

And one of the things that I think is interesting is it`s gotten at lot of attention. And I think a lot of students feel pressured to just go along with it, or to be OK if they walk into an apartment and it`s sitting on the table, when I think most of the students at the college are uncomfortable with it if they`re honest with themselves.

BECK: Right.

FREITAS: But they feel pressure to go along with it.

BECK: Jennifer, let me ask you this about being uncomfortable with stuff like this. What -- there is something to be said -- guys, men, you know, if they can get, if they can get it, they`ll take it. They`ll be scumbags every step of the way if society will let them be scumbags. And nobody teaches their son to not be a scumbag.

Women, however, have a physiological difference when they have sex, right?

MORSE: Well, that`s right. One of the things that happens with women is that we tend to attach to our sex partner through a hormone called oxytocin, which turns out to be the exact same hormone that we give off when we`re nursing our babies.

And so what`s happening is that, through the sexual act and through giving birth and having children, Mother Nature`s trying to create a family. Mother Nature`s trying to get us to attach to our babies and to attach to our husbands, or our boyfriends, the child`s father. And we`re trying to blow all that away and pretend it doesn`t happen, and that`s what`s making a lot of the women really uncomfortable and really quite miserable.

BECK: And Donna, you`re saying in your book, 41 percent of students express emotions as awkward, used, dirty, empty, regretful, ashamed, alone, miserable, disgusted, duped. I mean, these aren`t things that I -- when I my daughter, when I`m holding her in my arms, I hope that she feels someday.

FREITAS: Well, one of the things that I want to emphasize and that I try to emphasize in "Sex & the Soul" is that this isn`t just a women`s issue, felling uncomfortable with hookup culture. I found both men and women, the majority, equally uncomfortable with it.

BECK: That`s good news.

FREITAS: And talking behind closed doors about how they wished they could have what sounds like old-fashioned romance with flowers and candles.

BECK: Yes. OK.

Donna and Jennifer, thank you very much. We will hopefully have you back again and talk about what parents can do.

We`ll be back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Let me ask you two questions.

First of all, have you noticed how much cake I have had recently?

The second question is, how have we lost our minds?

Before you answer the second question, let me tell you the story of Christopher Rate (ph) and his son Leo (ph).

They went to Detroit, a Tigers game, father/son. Leo (ph) gets thirsty. Dad says, "How about a lemonade?"

It wasn`t until the ninth inning when a security guard spotted the 7- year-old drinking his lemonade. What`s the problem, you ask? Well, the sign at the concession stand said Mike`s Lemonade. But that`s Mike`s hard lemonade, an alcoholic beverage.

Dad said, "I had no idea. I`m sorry. I had no idea."

Well, they took Leo (ph) away, made him go to the hospital. And despite the fact that everybody involved knew it was a mistake of the father, that he really didn`t know, Leo (ph) spent the night crying himself to sleep at Child Protective Services. And it only took two days before his mom was able to regain custody and a week before Christopher was allowed to move back into his own house.

Is common sense in this country completely dead? The dad didn`t know that it was an alcoholic beverage. Why is he being punished?

Now, I figure just so this doesn`t happen again, let`s play a little game. Mike`s Hard Lemonade contains booze, not safe for kids.

However, this can of Cocaine, no, that`s fine. Just an energy drink. No problem at all.

What about Twisted Peach Tea? Sounds refreshing for the kids, right? No, booze.

How about Lime Wrecker (ph) Margarita? Just an energy drink. No big deal. Won`t lose custody on the kids on that one.

How about Relentless? Have any idea? Relentless. Energy drink made by Coca-Cola. Relentless.

Might be better to give your kids something safe like Raspberry Cider Jack. Ooh, if you did give your kids that, you would lose custody because that`s got booze in it.

How about Atomic Pom (ph)? No, nothing to worry about that. Just a pomegranate flavored energy drink.

What about 3 Sum? You`ve got to be kidding me. Energy drink. Plus, booze. It`s both. Yes.

So your kid`s going to be hyper and drunk. And at that point, you might be praying to lose custody of your kids.

Don`t forget, all the exclusive commentaries like this one in my free e-mail newsletter every day. This week it features the one and only Brian Sack, author of the new book "In The Event of My Untimely Demise."

Head over to glennbeck.com and sign up for a free copy of it right now.

We`ll see you tomorrow.

In the meantime, from New York, goodnight, America.

END

Home  |  World  |  U.S.  |  Politics  |  Crime  |  Entertainment  |  Health  |  Tech  |  Travel  |  Living  |  Money  |  Sports  |  Time.com
© 2014 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.