Return to Transcripts main page

Glenn Beck

Crude Reality of Gas and Oil Prices; UK Scientists to Combine Human, Animal Embryos

Aired May 21, 2008 - 19:00   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 price of oil hits another record high, with some analysts beginning to predict we ain`t seen nothing yet. Ten dollars a gallon, anyone?

Plus, another frightening example of the nanny state, this time in Florida, where one county has taken its no-smoking policies to a place that`s more just than a drag. I`ll explain why.

And scientists in the UK are having a cow, literally. The controversial plans to inject some of this into this. That doesn`t seem like it will turn out poorly.

All this and more tonight.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BECK: Hello, America. This morning while you were rubbing the sleep out your eyes, walking around in your underpants, getting your kids off to school, the price of oil crested over $130 a barrel. Great. Long-term oil futures went up nine bucks while you were sleeping last night. That`s $140 now a barrel.

Wait. It gets worse. Oil prices have risen 30 percent since the beginning of the year. And according to AAA, gas prices have risen the last 15 days in a row. I saw it in my neighborhood go up a dime overnight.

So here is "The Point" tonight. With the way things are going, I mean, we could -- you know, just strip me naked and make me pay $4 a gallon of gas, and I`ll remember it as the good old days. And here`s how I got there.

It is -- it`s not going to get any better any time soon, at least. You know why? Congress, the men and women who we have sent to Washington to protect our way of life, have done everything to not protect our way of life. It`s almost like they`re trying to screw us.

First, I made a list. They took their time and their money, burning up our food supply in the name of ethanol, the mystical, magical corn gas that cost $1.25 a make a dollar`s worth of energy. Here`s a fun fact. I can`t find any of it. Can you use it? Have you found where you can buy it?

Now, the French are getting 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear energy. But the kooks here in the United States, oh, no, no, no. We can`t do that. It`s too dangerous. We haven`t built a new nuclear power plan in America for over 30 years.

Hydroelectric power. Can you think of anything cleaner than that? It`s water. Try to build a dam in America. Try to. Try to build a dam now. The greeny-greens will be like, "Bucky the beaver and his little house of twigs will be under water."

We`re also sitting on more coal than Saudi Arabia has oil. But the feds have a coal-to-oil technology in a stranglehold. I`m sorry. We`ll do it for the Pentagon but not for the people.

There`s a pocket of natural gas in this country that could heat every home in America for 100 years. Not only has the government disallow the building of any new refineries, but they`ve also cut the number of operational refineries in half.

That brings me to Congress` latest bungle, not to be confused with the polar bear bungle last week. The House of Representatives overwhelming approved legislation yesterday to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies. Oh, that`s got to -- they carry giant swords and cut people`s heads off. You think they`re going to sit in a courtroom?

The legislation also creates a Justice Department task force -- I love this one -- to aggressively investigate gas price gouging and energy market manipulation. Leave it to the government. They already have one. The Federal Trade Commission has the exact same program. They put it in place in 2002. Maybe they should start checking each other`s e-mail.

You can`t afford to drive around the block, and Congress wants to argue with OPEC on Judge Judy.

Tonight, America, here is what you need to know. When it comes to helping you paying less for gas that you can`t live without, Congress is blowing it 100 percent of the time. Isn`t it ironic that Congress called the oil company heads to the Hill today, demanding to know why the price of oil is so high? You got to be kidding me. Right?

So the question is, how bad is it? How bad are gas prices going to get? Robert Hirsch is the author of "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management."

Robert, OK, $4-a-gallon gasoline. Goldman Sachs, the guy who came up with the super-spike theory, says $6-a-gallon gas could be around the corner. You say that`s just the beginning.

ROBERT HIRSCH, AUTHOR, "PEAKING OF WORLD OIL": The circumstances are such that I think we`re -- we can look ahead to $10- and $15-a-gallon gasoline. Unfortunately.

BECK: OK. How long in the future is that? How far away?

HIRSCH: Nobody really knows, because we`re dealing with a very complicated problem that`s associated with not only the geology of oil fields around the world but also investments by major oil companies, national oil companies in particular.

And there I think people need to understand that over 80 percent, maybe even 90 percent of the oil in the world, is controlled by national oil companies. And so, as much as we like to blame Exxon, which has been a favorite whipping boy in the past, they own very little of the oil that remains to be captured in the world.

BECK: OK. I believe that we should drill, but we should drill responsibly and safely. I mean, we can go up. We did on the North Slope in Alaska. Go up, drill safely. Do as little harm to the environment, go and get coal.

But we also need to develop nuclear energy. We need to do solar power. We need to do wind power. But you say that, really, liquid fuel is -- has got to be a major priority.

HIRSCH: That`s exactly right, because people tend to think of energy overall. But the oil problem is really a liquid fields problem. And the way we have to think about that is that there are all those cars and truck and buses and airplanes and ships and other equipment, all over the world, that burns liquid fuels.

So a nuclear power plant, in the near term, is not going to do anything to help that problem, the problem that`s associated with oil prices being extremely high, going higher, and eventually having to be rationed. So one has to differentiate between liquid fuels, which are needed for quite some time for existing equipment and electric power, which is used for other purposes.

BECK: Robert, I think everybody just thinks that we can just, you know -- new technology that will replace oil is right around the corner. You know, those are the commercials that you see right now. That`s not true, is it?

HIRSCH: The problem we`re dealing with here, Glenn, is that oil production in the world has leveled out and, since about the middle of 2004, oil production worldwide has been flat.

At some point it`s going to go into decline, and when it goes into decline, we all have a problem, not only with price but with being able to get the materials that we`re going to need.

In order to -- to mitigate that problem, we`re going to have to build much more fuel efficient cars and we are going to have to build coal to liquids plants, and do enhanced oil recovery, and a number of other things. But all of those things take time.

BECK: Yes.

HIRSCH: They do involve technology. But they take time, let alone huge amounts of money.

BECK: OK, Robert, thanks a lot.

Now you know, when I -- let me tell you, you just can`t make more mistakes than our Congress has, you know, to get out of the gas prices. Congress -- Congress, I swear to you, they have a perfect record of screwing it up. But rest assured, if they can screw it up more, they will.

Joining me now is Ben Stein, creator of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and co-author of "Yes, You Can Supercharge Your Portfolio."

Ben, I don`t know if you`ve heard this, but Congress actually is suing OPEC. They passed a bill yesterday. They want to sue OPEC.

BEN STEIN, FILMMAKER/AUTHOR: OPEC isn`t the problem. OPEC is not fixing the price anywhere. The price is being set by speculators running wild in New York and Shanghai and Tokyo, Hong Kong and London. It`s not being set by OPEC anymore. I hate to tell that to Congress.

BECK: Hang on a second. Do you not also think, Ben, that -- oh, I don`t know, there`s something a little -- something to do with -- I mean, here is their big -- here`s their big energy plan. The 2007 -- it`s got 11 co-sponsors, by the way. 2007 Industrial Hemp Farming Act to make hemp into fuel.

STEIN: Well, in a way, it fuels many of the rock `n` rollers who used to live near me in the Hollywood Hills. I assure you, it`s fueling them when they are partying all night long. But it`s not going to do much.

Look, this Congress is completely confused. I just heard Dianne Feinstein say on a radio program that the problem was Enron. Enron hasn`t even been in business for years. The problem is some kind of loophole allowing electronic trade.

That doesn`t do it. The problem is a panic among speculators driving up the price. The speculators are running wild. And eventually, it will turn around and go the other way. It might take a while.

BECK: So you don`t think -- you know what I have to tell you, we had this guy on just a second ago. And he was talking about, you know, oil. I wrote about it in my book. But I wrote about it and said I`m not sure if this is real or not, but you should look into it. I will tell you that, if you`ve got cap and trade coming, if you have -- are you even paying attention?

STEIN: Yes. I was going to eat something. But go ahead.

BECK: Could you do it maybe on your own time?

STEIN: OK, I will. OK.

BECK: If you`ve got -- we`ve got cap and trade coming. They`re talking about seizing profits. They -- you know, just made the polar bear threatened. All of these things, poking OPEC. Don`t you think that maybe Congress has a little something to do with it?

STEIN: Congress has a lot do with it. Congress has been preventing the United States, the world`s largest holder of coal, from turning that coal into oil for years and years now by unnecessary and harmful environmental regulations.

This country doesn`t understand what I think you do understand very well, Glenn. Which is we`re not just in a price problem situation. We`re in a survival situation.

Do you remember the Mad Max movies...

BECK: yes.

STEIN: ... where people would kill for a few drops of gasoline because there was such a shortage of gasoline? That`s what it`s going to be like here if we don`t do something. Not this year, not next year, not five years from now, not ten years from now, but in 15 years or so, there is going to be civil war over gasoline if we do not get cracked down on this immediately.

BECK: Well, I don`t think it will be civil war. I mean, it would be world war. You`ve got -- see, what people don`t understand is it`s not like the 1970s where we were the biggest consumers of oil. You`ve got China and India coming online.

That is -- no, you can -- you can wear all the sweaters you want. You can make children out of sweaters to keep them warm. It`s not going to be enough. You`ve got India, China coming on the line.

STEIN: It is a worldwide, giant crisis. It`s been staring at us in the face.

Glenn, I am now 63 years old. When I was 29, I wrote the first comprehensive energy bill for President Nixon. It was about 200 pages long. We sent it to Congress. It had every provision necessary to make this country energy independent. Congress enacted none of it, except the worst parts of it, the price controls for old (ph) oil.

So this Congress doesn`t have a clue. And the idea of suing OPEC, they`re not going to respond to an American court telling them to do something. I mean, Congress is completely confused.

BECK: Ben, we`ve got them right where we want them.

STEIN: Yes, exactly.

BECK: They have come over, we`ve got all their money in our banks. They`re loaning us money, and we`re slaves to their oil. And they never see us coming.

STEIN: They are going to -- we started out as a colony, and we`re going to end up as a colony unless we do something about this energy right now. And we can do it.

BECK: OK.

STEIN: We are to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil. We can do it.

BECK: Ben, stay where you are. I want to come back a little later on in the program and talk about the nanny state that America is becoming.

Also, government is botching the energy crisis. We got that. So who`s got the right kind of thinking when it comes to what`s coming next? Are there solutions other than making sweater babies? That`s next.

Plus, Barack Obama facing a storm of criticism for his recent and past comments about Iran. Will his foreign policy make him vulnerable in the general election or just make us vulnerable?

And a reminder: tonight`s show is brought to you by the Sleep Number Bed by Select Comfort. Sleep Number Bed, it`s the bed that counts.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Coming up, Barack Obama taking his hits from all sides today, from critics of his foreign policy. And I`ll join the dog pile in just a minute.

Obama`s plans are reckless. They put our national security at risk, and I`ll explain why in tonight`s real story.

But first, we go to limited supply. And increased demand across the globe has oil prices through the roof. This morning topped $132 a barrel. You already know that, because you`re forking over $4 a gallon at the pump.

Beware: the prices were based on last month`s $120-a-barrel oil. So it is going to go up from here.

Some say this summer it will affect your family`s vacation road trip. In five months or so, prices will likely even be higher. Just in time for burning up your budget as you heat your home through fall and winter.

Now I feel that coal to oil, and aggressive domestic drilling, are viable and immediate solutions. But they are still just a stopgap. We need to look at everything; everything needs to be on table. We need to think big on energy alternatives and give ourselves the best shot at preserving and enhancing our way of life.

Our need for energy is only going to increase. Luckily, we live in America, where innovation is our specialty.

Here to walk us through some of the options today and tomorrow, James Meigs. He`s the popular -- or the editor-in-chief of "Popular Mechanics."

James, first of all, you don`t think we`re running out of oil?

JAMES MEIGS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "POPULAR MECHANICS": We`re not running out of oil. We`re a little short in the short term. You know, the upside of these high prices, as tough as they are on families...

BECK: Yes.

MEIGS: ... is they encourage a lot of exploration.

BECK: Sure.

MEIGS: And just in the last three years we have seen a whole range of huge new fields come online as oil companies press their exploration into deeper water and more remote locales. And that`s going to really affect the international supply, but also there is a ton of energy here at home.

BECK: But we can`t get to it, James.

MEIGS: Well, some of that is regulation and bureaucracy. Because, you know, there is something like perhaps as much 20 billion barrels of oil right off the East and West Coast of this country that we`re not drilling for now.

BECK: Right. I mean, see, that`s my problem. And I think we both agree. I`m not concerned about, you know, in 40 years, with real technology and American entrepreneurial spirit, we`re going to be able to find a replacement for oil. But we`ve got to use the things that we have. We`re slaves overseas.

But let me go in a different direction. Give me some of the things that we have that we can get that will realistically work now. For instance, we are sitting on a butt-load of natural gas. Right?

MEIGS: That`s exactly right. They just found a new field in western New York and Ohio that could contain decades worth of natural gas. And natural gas is a very clean energy source. Much cleaner in terms of its carbon dioxide and other emissions, even, than oil.

BECK: Will we go for it? Or will the -- you know, "Oh, you`re harming the brown dirt" people come out of the woodwork?

MEIGS: Well, that looks pretty promising, because really, drilling for natural gas is a pretty safe and clean operation. Much better, for example, compared to strip-mining coal.

BECK: OK. Nuclear energy.

MEIGS: Well, nuclear energy, this is really a secret weapon that will take years to develop, because we`ve fallen so far behind. In France they get about 70 percent of their electricity from energy. It`s carbon neutral. It`s very reliable, and the safety questions, despite some controversy really have been...

BECK: And James, it`s true, as I understand it, that all of the waste that we`ve used that we`ve made in commercial, nuclear energy since 1957 can fit into a room the size of a high-school gym. True or false?

MEIGS: I don`t know if that`s quite correct. Because right now a lot of it is stored at different power plants in pools of water, and it depends on what you call waste. You know, the plant itself gradually becomes radioactive. But the pure rods themselves don`t take up a lot of space. And that`s probably a good estimate.

BECK: OK. The ethanol thing drives me out of my mind, because it takes $1.25 to make a dollar`s worth of fuel. But -- but sugar ethanol -- I think we have it listed as -- what is it, cellulose?

MEIGS: There`s a number of types of ethanol. You and I, I think, are both skeptical about the corn-based ethanol.

BECK: No, you might be skeptical. I think it stinks.

MEIGS: It certain takes -- it just doesn`t add up in the energy...

BECK: Right.

MEIGS: Sugar ethanol is better. But there`s another thing coming down the line, what they call cellulosic. This is ethanol they can make from corn stalks, wood chips, all kinds of waste products. The technology is still being ironed out, but we think we`re just two or three years away from seeing some of these sources come online. And this looks like a good option for us.

BECK: OK. How about this, that really good Barack Obama idea? Turn down the air conditioning and wear a sweater.

MEIGS: Well, you know, when prices go up people do conserve. But rather than living a less comfortable lifestyle, what we`re seeing is there are ways to conserve, keep your lifestyle but make our cars and homes more efficient.

BECK: OK.

MEIGS: And that`s happened here.

BECK: All right. James, thanks a lot.

Now, another example of our government telling you how to live your life, try this one on for size. One county in Florida has a plan that will make blood shoot out of your eyes and smoke come right out of your trachea.

Plus, the growing controversy over British parliament`s decision to allow the creation of a human-cow hybrid. That`s not the kind of hybrid I want to drive. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: You know, sometimes I get up in the morning and I read the paper and I read a story that, you know, will shock me. Sometimes I read one that really outrages me. Sometimes I read stories that make me pray for the future of mankind. This story does all three.

Lawmakers in the UK have given the green light to plans to combine human embryos with animal embryos. You know, for research. The result, cutely called cy-brids, are embryos that are 99.9 percent human. But they have a law now that these cells have to be destroyed within 14 days, which is just enough time to harvest them for stem cells. Isn`t that great?

You know, if all we ever needed were laws to make sure that everything runs right, then why do we have so many prisons?

Marcy Darnovsky, they`re actually taking a cow embryo and sucking the cow stuff out and putting human stuff in it?

MARCY DARNOVSKY: Well, that`s what some scientists want to do. It`s not clear that there`s a convincing medical or scientific reason for doing that. But it is a good thing that there`s a rule that says that those hybrid embryos have to be destroyed after 14 days. I don`t think they`d be viable anyway.

BECK: Right. I mean, we`re not -- we`re not talking about like, you know, a race of men with udders. I mean...

DARNOVSKY: We hope not.

BECK: Yes, OK.

DARNOVSKY: But the problem -- one of the concerns is that there are a small number but a disturbing number of scientists and people who call themselves bioethicists and others who really do want to go down the road towards genetically re-engineering human beings.

BECK: Yes.

DARNOVSKY: And that sounds like the dangerous one, the one we really need to stay off.

BECK: Marcy, wasn`t this -- I mean, correct me if I`m wrong here -- wasn`t this kind of the idea of genetics, except now -- or eugenics, except now with the technology to do it?

DARNOVSKY: Well, that`s one of the concerns, that there could be a new kind of eugenics. Not like the old kind, where the government is telling you what to do, but a new kind where the market would be convincing us what we should or what we could do or what we have do to keep up with the Joneses.

And that`s really going off in a direction toward a "Gattaca" kind of world where some people are considered superior and some people who are less so. That introduces new kinds of inequalities in a really terrible way.

BECK: And I mean, you would have problems with health insurance, but you`d also -- part of it would be kind of cool because you`d be like, I can run for milk at the store. Let me just -- you know what I`m saying? Dad can make the milk for you.

The -- the 14-day rule before you destroy them, pretty much isn`t this harvesting? I mean, the idea of harvesting anything -- creating life, and then harvesting -- makes it so Peter Singer, it`s spooky.

DARNOVSKY: Well, people have different points of view. My own point of view is I`m not focused on the moral status of embryos. I`m really more worried about the social consequences, about the potential for new kinds of inequality and new kinds of stigmatization and discrimination. And for making this whole thing into a commercial enterprise...

BECK: OK.

DARNOVSKY: ... making the reproduction of human beings, you know, something for the market.

BECK: Or we could go with the, you know, whole disregard for human life thing. Marcy, thanks a lot.

Up next, as Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy begins his battle, he is lucky to have one of the best health-care plans available. Reality is, not a lot of people in that state are as fortunate. I`ll explain in tonight`s "Real Story."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Welcome to the "Real Story." Senator Ted Kennedy was released from Massachusetts General Hospital today. And on behalf of everybody on this program, we want to send our best wishes for what I`m sure is going to be a terribly difficult fight ahead. But fortunately, as a senator, Ted Kennedy is covered by one of the best health care plans in the country. Unfortunately, you can`t really say that about the guy who was in the room next to him. If you remember back in 2006, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law sweeping new health care reforms that required citizens to obtain health insurance. Here`s how he described it at the time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Every citizen with affordable comprehensive health insurance, small businesses able to conveniently buy insurance for their employees at a cost that`s competitive with big businesses, medical transparency, bringing marketplace dynamics to health care, really for the first time. And finally, beginning to rein in health care inflation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Yes, finally a workable model for nationwide universal health care. It is fabulous, almost too good to be true. It is too good to be true.

The real story is this is why I was always conflicted when I said I supported Romney. He was flirting with Marxism and socialism. RomneyCare is a model for government mandated universal health care. A model for why it will never work. The program was supposed to make private health insurance more affordable. You heard him just say it.

But instead, people have flocked to the state subsidized public insurance option. Who would have seen that coming? That forced the state to expand the public insurance program and now RomneyCare is virtually financial ruins. Over the next decade, RomneyCare is expected to run about $4 billion over budget. More than half of that will be covered by state taxes. So where does the other half come from?

Romney has promised no new taxes to fund the plan. But he`s gone now to -- he is gone and now state legislators are looking to increase both business and tobacco taxes to pay for that. Boy, you better train your kids to start smoking early because the state needs the money if they are buying cigarettes. You know what? Either they do all that stuff or they have to reduce enrollment and eliminate benefits.

Starting to sound a little familiar? It is the same old theme. When the government grows, your bank account shrinks. What about the requirement that everybody buys insurance? Well, still more than 300,000 Massachusetts citizens without it. Not surprising considering that in California, there are still more people who have voluntary health insurance than mandatory auto insurance.

I`m a big fan of Mitt Romney on a lot of things, but this is what happens when a fiscal conservative takes a stab at universal health care. Good god almighty. What would it look like? What is our country`s medical system look like if big spenders like Clinton or Obama gets their hand on it?

Dad? Listen to me, brother. Get the best doctors you can. Get as well as fast as you can because health care in this country, I`m afraid, is about to change.

Sally Pipes is the president of the Pacific Research Institute, served as a health care adviser during the Rudy Giuliani campaign. I have to tell you, Sally, Rudy Giuliani`s plan was the best. He was the only candidate that actually had it down. What`s this -- what`s this actually costing in Massachusetts?

SALLY PIPES, PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE: In Massachusetts, yes. I became a critic of the plan back in January `06 when it first was introduced. Now I say it is in the terrible twos. And you know, Deval Patrick has said for fiscal `09, the plan is going to cost about $869 million. That was the estimate. But now they`re already saying that it`s probably going to run in around $1.1, $1.2 billion and, you know, as you say, tax increases on citizens, governments don`t have money. They have to get it from us.

BECK: Go ahead.

PIPES: I was just going to say, tax increases on cigarettes, very few people are smoking today. When the tax goes up, fewer will smoke.

BECK: Right. You also have the taxes on business. You are already seeing it. I mean, we talked about this -- I talked about this with Clinton and Obama`s plan. If you tax business and you make things so uncomfortable for them do business, and then you also say oh, you know, there`s also this option over here. Businessmen are going to say you know what? I`m not paying for it twice. I`m not going to pay a heavy tax and provide private insurance. Let the state do it.

PIPES: Why should businesses expand or businesses will leave the state of Massachusetts. I mean, this is what happens when the market works. Unfortunately, this plan and now under a Democratic governor has proved to be very expensive and as you said, two-thirds of the people have signed up for Commonwealth Care, the free or subsidized plan. They`ve added about 70,000 more people to Medicaid. And the number of people that signed up for Commonwealth Choice, the paying plan, is very small. It is about 70,000. People said I would rather lose the income tax deduction of $219 than buy expensive insurance that I don`t need and am not going to get sick.

PIPES: You are a Canadian, if I`m not mistaken.

BECK: I am.

PIPES: When you hear people like Obama and Clinton and John McCain talk about universal health care, what goes through your mind?

PIPES: I think universal health care to me, universal coverage by using mandates, is not the way to go. I think -- moving down the path, it is going to be very expensive. Hillary says $110 billion. No government program ever costs that. I see you us moving down the pathway to a single- payer government run health care system such as exists in Canada. Long waiting lists, rationed care and lack of equipment. You can control your budget, but that`s what happens when you try. And I left Canada.

BECK: You`ve got people in Canada right now in the Supreme Court saying hello, I need health care and I can`t it in Canada. That`s where we are headed. Sally, thank you very much.

Now, it has been somewhat of a recurring theme here on this program that whatever our politicians try to solve one problem, they create 8,700 bigger ones. RomneyCare story, great example. But so is the Iraq war supplemental that is currently being debated in the Senate. Problem, troops need more money. My solution, send them more. Congress` solution, load up the emergency bill with all sorts of junk that has nothing to do with work.

For example, why don`t we tuck in there $11 billion to extend unemployment benefits to workers who have used their time even though the unemployment rate is still about 5 percent? Next, block regulations that would cut $13 billion in federal spending on Medicaid. Why would you want to spend less? That`s just crazy talk. $6 billion to strengthen the levees in New Orleans. The city built under sea level. I`m sure no hurricane will ever hit there again. You know, I guess you just can`t fight al Qaeda in Baghdad with weak levees.

And finally, my personal favorite, a provision that would ban all permanent bases in Iraq. Ask yourself why would Democrats fight for that last provision? Especially when we have just unveiled this, our gleaming, gargantuan $750 million U.S. embassy in Baghdad. It`s the size of the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The real story is it is because our politicians apparently still think it`s 1955. You know, back when we were living in denial that the Middle East and OPEC basically own us. Denial that our own oil production would peak soon. Denial that our government is really run by special interest groups who have, you know, get this, special interests that don`t really line up with yours.

But now it`s 2008. Ignorance is no longer bliss. It is criminal. Our politicians like Barack Obama who think that on one hand we shouldn`t be looking for more oil here at home and on the other hand, we have to get out of the Middle East. They are just not using any kind of common sense. You heard it at the top of the show tonight, how little cheap oil there really is left in the world. Every bit of it, every single drop of it is going to need to be safeguarded no matter where it is.

So sure, close the bases in Iraq. But when their oil fields start burning and we are paying $15 a gallon for gas, don`t think for a second I`m not going to remind the American people exactly whose fault it is. You cannot have it both ways, Congress. You either drill here or you keep our bases there. Pick one. I prefer we drill here.

Steve Huntley is a columnist for "The Chicago-Sun Times." Steve, where do I have this wrong?

STEVE HUNTLEY, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: You`ve got it exactly right. And I can tell you another example of where Barack Obama is trying to have its two ways. He said that the United States should not negotiate with the terrorists organization Hamas so long as it refuses to recognize Israel, carries out terrorism and refuses to abide by the agreements Israel has made with its Arab neighbors. But he is willing to talk to Iran. Now you tell me which of those objections to talking to Hamas doesn`t also apply to Iran. Iran --

BECK: OK, hang on just a second. Let me say this or take you here back to Hamas because he -- he talks about they have legitimate claims. What legitimate claims does Hamas have?

HUNTLEY: I don`t know a single one. It was founded for the sole purpose, destruction of Israel. And I don`t know. He let that slip in an interview the other day and nobody knows what it means, as far as I know. I have not heard him elaborate on it.

He has been going around and he has been going around throughout this whole campaign season trying successfully some people say in convincing the voters that he`s a stalwart friend of Israel and I take him at his word at that. But again, what possible legitimate claim does Hamas have?

BECK: OK, some would say well, John F. Kennedy talked to Khrushchev. Reagan talked to Gorbachev. Why wouldn`t we talk to our enemies?

HUNTLEY: Well, because you have to prepare for talks. You have to come in with determination and preconditions. Now, some of those talks don`t always turn out. John Kennedy`s talks with Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961 did not turn out well. Khrushchev went away for that meeting convinced that Kennedy was weak and two months later, the Berlin Wall went up in Berlin. The next year we found out that the Soviet Union was intent on putting missiles in Cuba, participating the Cuban missile crisis which brought this country to the closest to nuclear war that ever became. And it all became about partly because Khrushchev took Kennedy`s measure at Vienna and determined, thought he was weak. It turned out that was not true but that`s what he came away with that meeting feeling about Kennedy.

BECK: So and here`s the opposite, if I will. You know, Ted Kennedy is in the news. But I remember back during the Reagan when Reagan walked out. They were supposed to -- I think it was Rekyjavik and they were supposed to have the meeting and he said I`m sorry, it is on the table and he walked out and everyone went crazy. Ted Kennedy said had is going to get us all killed, et cetera, et cetera. I imagine that it is OK to talk to our enemies at least the way I see it, as long as you know what your values are and say, for instance, this is what George Bush is doing right now. We will talk. But first, no nukes. You do not have nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

HUNTLEY: You are absolutely right. Gorbachev wanted Reagan to abandon the star wars, you know, the star wars defensive shield and Reagan absolutely refused to do that. Your point is absolutely right. You have to go into the talks with your position firm and not willing to back down from it.

BECK: OK.

HUNTLEY: Barack Obama`s position is he could go to these talks without preconditions.

BECK: All right Steve, thanks a lot. That`s the real story tonight. Up next, Ben Stein returns to tell you why being a smoker in one Florida county may be -- do I - may be a drag in your job hunt? Whoever wrote that is fired. I hope it`s John Bobby. I really do.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well usually it is California that tries to pass the really, really stupid laws. But Florida wants a piece of the crazy action. So, smoke them if you`ve got them. As of today, Sarasota County will implement a tobacco-free hiring policy for all new job applicants. Under this Draconian/McCarthy-like policy, all applicants for jobs with the county will be required to acknowledge that they have not used tobacco products for the preceding 12 months.

Applicants who refuse to verify that they are not now or ever have been a member of the smokers party need not apply. And just for laughs, candidates will also be screened for tobacco use during the physical exam. It is the nanny state meets red scare. Welcome to Florida, gang. Ben Stein is back, creator of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed."

BEN STEIN, CREATOR, EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED: Now can I have my cheeseburger?

BECK: It has been a half an hour!

STEIN: I know but I had more than one.

BECK: Ben, here is the thing. Smokers, I get it. It costs a lot of money for health insurance.

STEIN: Right. That`s really good. By the way, don`t kid yourself. McDonald`s makes a very good cheeseburger.

BECK: So let me ask you this, Ben Stein. Why don`t they go after the cheeseburger?

STEIN: Well, I`m afraid that`s coming. And that`s why I want to have as many of them as I can right now. This is -- I totally understand where they are coming from. I was kicked out of naval ROTC for having asthma. And therefore, they said they didn`t want to have to pay my medical bills later in life. I know, I know. I would have been a very dangerous guy in the navy. Slippery slope here. Yes, you say, OK, we don`t want people who smoke. That makes a lot of sense. But then again, do we want people who don`t exercise? Maybe they will start asking people when was the last time you swam? When was the last time you could run? Wait a minute, what are you doing? What is that?

BECK: I just don`t ever want to go to work in Florida.

STEIN: That looks to me like you are smoking a cigarette.

BECK: It is a joint.

STEIN: What? Well if it`s a joint, then I`m going to have my McDonald`s cheeseburger.

BECK: Well, here is the thing. Ben, if you want to say that you can`t smoke, that`s fine, if you are private. But what`s coming is universal health care. So you have people who smoke. How are they going to - what are they going to do? Can they not get universal health care through the government?

BECK: It is all going to be locked in together because we need smokers to smoke because we need the revenue from selling tobacco products. Yet, we don`t want them to smoke because we don`t want to have to take care of them when they are dying from lung cancer or heart disease. It is going to be the same thing about fattening foods, it`s going to be the same thing about exercise.

We are moving inexorably, it seems to me, towards government control of our down to every detail. And I will say, I agree with you on this. I rather pay more in health insurance. I`d rather have more medical expenses than have the government control my freedom. Freedom is greater than health insurance any day.

BECK: Let me tell you something. As good as this is, have you had the McGriddle?

STEIN: No, I haven`t, but I did have the new southern chicken.

BECK: I`ll die riddled with cancer, I don`t care. Seriously, I don`t care if they say McGriddles cause cancer and it shoots right to your legs. Take my leg off. I`m having McGriddles.

STEIN: Sounds awfully good. I will stop and get one on the way back from the show. This problem of wanting to take away freedom, it is a big problem. Germans have a saying for it. It always starts in the same. It`s some beneficial act that`s going to felt by the whole society if they you`re your freedom away. You know what, we will skip the benefits, I would like to keep my freedom.

BECK: Ben, honestly, how do you get past that? How do you -- because this is -- this is going -- it is very easy for people -- what is it, 12 percent of the American people smoke right now? It is very easy to say we can`t cover the smokers. At the same time, the state is making money off of smoking taxes.

STEIN: Making money in a huge, gigantic way. Smoking is a tax revenue, a huge source of revenue for the United States. Look, I`m not that worried about the smokers. I`m worried about the eaters. I`m worried about the lack of exercise. I`m worried about the government sending some nutritionist vegetarian maniac long distance runner into my house and rousing me and my wife out of my bed and make us run at 6:00 in the morning. I`m worried about that.

BECK: I will move to Canada.

STEIN: Canada is very strict, too.

BECK: Did you just burp on the air?

STEIN: Yes.

BECK: That`s very rude.

STEIN: I`m sorry. I couldn`t help it.

BECK: Enough, enough, enough. Back in a minute. That was rude.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BECK: Well if you`ve watched the news at all for the last couple of years, you know that when there is a problem, there`s only a couple of ways the media can go. The cause must be either global warming or obesity. Yes, carbon and cake seem to be overwhelming the problems in this country. At least as far as wiping out humans go.

What if we could combine the two? What if the evils of eating too much cake combined with the evils of driving too much created a giant mega- disaster that would immediately come flaming down at us and crush us all. I don`t mean to scare you.

But obesity and global warming are working together. New report from the BBC says this headline and I`m not making it up. "Obese blamed for the world`s ills." What we find out is since the obese, oh, there they are, eat on the average about 18 percent more calories, they are contributing to the world`s food crisis. They are also using more fuel. Food needs fuel to get the fat man`s plate. Plus, I guess, it takes more gas to cart the obese in and out of the Arby`s drive-thru.

Maybe it is just me but I think this sounds a little ridiculous. I mean, can obesity related global warming really be that big of a deal? Well, "The Yew York Times" decided to look into it. Steven Levitt of Freakonomics, he looked into the numbers for the "Times." He found that the appropriate tax to pay for all of the damage done for the hugely important cause of the world`s ills is about $1 a month.

But as always, alarmists miss how they talk themselves into a corner because if you are going to -- if you are going to tax activities like eating more calories then you need, don`t you also have to tax people who exercise? I mean, why are you burning all those extra calories that you just have to replace? If you jog an hour and burn a thousand calories, that`s two and a half times as bad for the earth as the average fatty.

Hey, I mean, why bother talking about that when you can tie obesity and global warming together? So remember, fat people are causing the world`s ills. Now you know why you hate them so much. So think twice when you pick up that 14th Smores Pop Tart. But also, don`t reconsider enough to exercise or to get into shape. Just live in the environmentalist utopia, where we all sit very still and very quietly hoping not to disturb Mother Earth.

Don`t forget, you want to know what`s on tomorrow`s show or a little more in-depth commentary, get your solar panel out, log on to GlennBeck.com. We`ll send it to you, electronically. No trees will be killed. From New York, good night.

END