Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
Shop
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

'White Guys: We Suck and We're Sorry': Glenn reacts to bizarre new video that apologizes for years of white privilege

May 08, 2014
Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

“White Guys: We suck And We’re Sorry.” That is the title of a new 2-minute video written and produced by Stephen Parkhurst, who gained some notoriety for a similarly themed video he created last year entitled “Millennials: We Suck And We’re Sorry.” According to the video’s YouTube description, it is time for “straight white dudes” to apologize. “It's not that we're against inequality,” the description claims. “We just can't relate to it.”

Check out the video below (WARNING: While it may feel like you are watching a Saturday Night Live skit, alas, you are not – this is real):

Glenn came across the video last night, and he immediately got to writing a monologue in response. On radio this morning, Glenn questioned what exactly he is supposed to apologize for. Is being born a certain way now a crime? Are all white men really as evil as the clip suggests? Finally, is apologizing for the actions of those who came before us the new ‘status quo’ in the collectivist society progressives are fighting so hard for?

“I don't even know what I'm supposed to apologize for,” Glenn said. “Being born a certain way? Are you going to apologize for being born black? Are you going to apologize for being born Hispanic? I'm not going to apologize for being born white, and I'm not going to apologize for being born a male.”

“My impression was that the entire movement was supposed about how you're not supposed to apologize for the way were you born,” Stu added. “And yet here we are apologizing for the way we were born.”

Below is a rough transcript of the monologue:

I don't know what we're doing as a society. We're tearing apart absolutely everything and splitting us into little groups. Now white men suck, and we need to apologize. This is something now that is sweeping our college campuses… You'll think it's a joke. You'll think it's a Saturday Night Live kit, but it's not, they're serious. ‘Hi, I'm white. I'm a male, and I suck. And I've oppressed people for so long.’ Now, I haven't oppressed anybody. I don't apologize for my whiteness or for being born a male. There are some things I can't change. Oh, no, I guess now I can change that. There are some things I don't want to change and being a white male, no matter where I live in the world, I'm not ashamed of. I never will be. Yes, I am a white. A white man. Oh, no, but all white males don't suck. Some have sucked, sure. Some still suck. Uh-huh.

But isn't it racist to condemn an entire group based on color? And what's even more amazing: This is coming out of the university systems that are trying to teach us how to be tolerant. What's more amazing is this is more than just racism. It's also sexism and gender bashing. All three of those things were constantly being lectured to as being bad. All three of those things I was taught was wrong growing up in a household in the 1960s – run by a white male. Is it possible I learned that those things were wrong? But could we look at the theory of all white men suck for a minute?

Robert Mugabe, white male. He sucked. Wait, no, he's black. Well, a white male Che [Guevara]. He sucked. He killed all kinds of people. Hated homosexuals. Hated blacks. Oh, no, wait. He was Hispanic. Well, Mao. Mao, he really sucked. But wait, he was Chinese. So maybe it isn't race because some of the biggest killers of the last 100 years were of different colors. Okay, it's got to be something different because Robert Byrd sucked and he was a white male. He was a Klan member. But he was a Democrat. Hitler sucked. He was white. But he was a socialist. Stalin sucked, and he was a white male. But he was a communist. Yes, they're all men. Maybe that's it. It's just that they're all men. No, Margaret Sanger, she sucked. She's responsible for the death of millions. And she was white, but she was a woman and a progressive.

So the Grinch puzzled and puzzled until his puzzler was sore. To suck because you're a white male isn't quite right. Maybe, just maybe, there's a little bit more. Abe Lincoln, he was a white male. He didn't suck. Jack Kennedy, he was a white male. He didn't suck. The new pope, he's a white male. A lot of people don't think he sucked. The first beloved black president, he's a white male. Wait. Tesla was a white male. He gave us the outlet and the power generation that we now have in our damns. The reason why you can hear my voice today is because of Tesla. He was a white male. Louis Pasteur is the reason why many of us are alive today. He was a white male. He gave us antibiotics. Henry Ford was a white guy. He gave us the assembly line which created a Detroit that was out in the front lines in early 1900s as a city that was an absolute boon for blacks and anyone who wanted and needed good jobs. Yes, Henry Ford was personally a racist and horribly anti-Semitic. But I believe he was also a progressive Democrat. His work is responsible for one of the largest cash cows for the progressive movement, the Ford Foundation.

‘Wait a minute,’ said the Grinch. If the left hates the white man so much, one of the worst white men who ever created a whole bunch of jobs and a whole bunch of good things. But let's not concentrate on that. Let's just concentrate on his racism, his blood money that he made. If they hate him so much, then they should refrain from taking that blood money from the Ford Foundation. FDR, he was a white male, beloved by the elite and left. And of course, we know he didn't suck. He only put the Japanese behind barbed wire. He was a progressive Democrat, you know. Woodrow Wilson, there's a white man for you. Oh, college professors love him. Same college professors who now want me to call all white men evil, continually put Woodrow Wilson as one of the greatest presidents to ever live – in the same category as Abraham Lincoln and that other guy who built the concentration camps for people of different color. What's so odd about this grouping is the fact that one of them freed the slaves as a white Republican and the other two are progressive Democrats. And Wilson re-segregated the army – a profound racist and a general in the war on women. Hmm.

I'm noticing a pattern here. LBJ was a white male. He was also a progressive democratic icon. Everybody loved him. He was a creator of the great society. He was also the man who single-handedly shut down the civil rights legislation and kept it down for a decade before it was finally reintroduced when he was president. It was a decade of strife, of bloodshed, and assassinations of Malcolm X and MLK. If LBJ had been on the right side, none of that stuff would have had to happen. Side note: The legislation was proposed by a white male, a president who is white. No, not John F. Kennedy, of course. You'd have to use Common Core math to make that a decade. No, it was Dwight Eisenhower. A white male. Yes, who was also one of those Republicans.

The white heritage that we're supposed to now hate is also the Judeo-Christian heritage which first freed the slaves in Egypt and then led to the enlightenment and the Second Great Awakening which freed the slaves in America. It is the white heritage that gave us Benjamin Franklin, yes, that evil founder, who was not only a strong abolitionist but also started the first public hospital and gave the world his invention of the potbelly stove for free. It's that heritage or the so-called white heritage that is so evil that gave the world the electric light, the movie camera, the television, the Internet, the moon landing. Yes, blacks and people of all different colors and races were involved in that heritage. But here's the conundrum: You really can't condemn an entire culture and claim that this culture has made it impossible for the man of color to participate in any meaningful way and then try to claim that the black man or the yellow man or the red man or any man or any woman was powerful enough to add any significant contribution to the amazing accomplishments of this evil white culture. Because if you did, in doing so, you would invalidate your entire argument.

Oh, man, my puzzler is sore again. Of course, if you didn't do that, then you would have to point out that what happened here in this white male-run evil culture wasn't all bad. In fact, some, if not much of it, was profoundly good for humans. I mean it wasn't the Asian culture that did these things. Or the actual African culture that did this. Or the female Hispanic culture, which again seems to undercut the argument that the white heritage isn't all bad. A lot of things do go into the damning of a man.

I can't imagine what part a man's race might play. I always was taught by my father and my grandfather, both white males, that racism was when you judged a man based solely on his race and lumped everyone together due to their skin or to their heritage. They taught me that that's what Hitler did – judged people by groups, put people in groups of race, color, or ability. It's what led to Hitler killing the handicapped because they were no longer people. They were just a category.

I have an idea. Actually, with the way things are going today in America, it seems to be less of an idea or at least less of a workable idea and more of, I don't know, a dream. Let's leave it at that. I have a dream that one day black children and white children will all play together and work together and love each other and build a better future. I have a dream that a man will not be judged on his sexuality or his gender or his race, but rather the content of his individual character. I know, impossible, isn't it? We all seem to be moving in the opposite direction. But, hey, this is still America where a man can still dream, right?

Why the White House restoration sent the left Into panic mode

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Presidents have altered the White House for decades, yet only Donald Trump is treated as a vandal for privately funding the East Wing’s restoration.

Every time a president so much as changes the color of the White House drapes, the press clutches its pearls. Unless the name on the stationery is Barack Obama’s, even routine restoration becomes a national outrage.

President Donald Trump’s decision to privately fund upgrades to the White House — including a new state ballroom — has been met with the usual chorus of gasps and sneers. You’d think he bulldozed Monticello.

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s ‘visionary.’

The irony is that presidents have altered and expanded the White House for more than a century. President Franklin D. Roosevelt added the East and West Wings in the middle of the Great Depression. Newspapers accused him of building a palace while Americans stood in breadlines. History now calls it “vision.”

First lady Nancy Reagan faced the same hysteria. Headlines accused her of spending taxpayer money on new china “while Americans starved.” In truth, she raised private funds after learning that the White House didn’t have enough matching plates for state dinners. She took the ridicule and refused to pass blame.

“I’m a big girl,” she told her staff. “This comes with the job.” That was dignity — something the press no longer recognizes.

A restoration, not a renovation

Trump’s project is different in every way that should matter. It costs taxpayers nothing. Not a cent. The president and a few friends privately fund the work. There’s no private pool or tennis court, no personal perks. The additions won’t even be completed until after he leaves office.

What’s being built is not indulgence — it’s stewardship. A restoration of aging rooms, worn fixtures, and century-old bathrooms that no longer function properly in the people’s house. Trump has paid for cast brass doorknobs engraved with the presidential seal, restored the carpets and moldings, and ensured that the architecture remains faithful to history.

The media’s response was mockery and accusations of vanity. They call it “grotesque excess,” while celebrating billion-dollar “climate art” projects and funneling hundreds of millions into activist causes like the No Kings movement. They lecture America on restraint while living off the largesse of billionaires.

The selective guardians of history

Where was this sudden reverence for history when rioters torched St. John’s Church — the same church where every president since James Madison has worshipped? The press called it an “expression of grief.”

Where was that reverence when mobs toppled statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant? Or when first lady Melania Trump replaced the Rose Garden’s lawn with a patio but otherwise followed Jackie Kennedy’s original 1962 plans in the garden’s restoration? They called that “desecration.”

If a Republican preserves beauty, it’s vandalism. If a Democrat does the same, it’s “visionary.”

The real desecration

The people shrieking about “historic preservation” care nothing for history. They hate the idea that something lasting and beautiful might be built by hands they despise. They mock craftsmanship because it exposes their own cultural decay.

The White House ballroom is not a scandal — it’s a mirror. And what it reflects is the media’s own pettiness. The ruling class that ridicules restoration is the same class that cheered as America’s monuments fell. Its members sneer at permanence because permanence condemns them.

Julia Beverly / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump’s improvements are an act of faith — in the nation’s symbols, its endurance, and its worth. The outrage over a privately funded renovation says less about him than it does about the journalists who mistake destruction for progress.

The real desecration isn’t happening in the East Wing. It’s happening in the newsrooms that long ago tore up their own foundation — truth — and never bothered to rebuild it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.