Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Rachel Dolezal: Cultural Appropriation Gone Wrong

February 27, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Evidently lying to your friends and co-workers comes with a price. Rachel Dolezal, former president of the NAACP Spokane chapter who resigned amid allegations that she lied about her racial identity, has come upon hard times.

"She's jobless, on food stamps and expects soon to be homeless," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Its unclear why she just does not identify to have a home or identify to have a job."

Co-host Jeffy Fisher had an even better recommendation.

"She should just identify as a CEO. She would be making big money," Jeffy said.

Despite all the controversy and her white parents confirming their biological daughter's racial identity, Dolezal remains steadfast that she identifies as black.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: Is there some sad news for Rachel Dolezal? This is -- seems unfortunate.

JEFFY: Oh, no.

PAT: She is the -- you might remember, I think the Spokane NAACP chapter. She was the head of that. She was the head of it for some time. And then it was discovered, somehow, I guess somebody finally looked at her and said, "Wait a minute. You're not black." She's like, "Sure, yeah, I am. Oh, yeah, I'm way black."

And it turns out no. She has white parents. She herself is white. But she identified more as a black person, right?

STU: Yes.

PAT: And now I guess she's having a hard time getting a job.

STU: Yeah. She's jobless, on food stamps, and expects soon to be homeless. Is unclear why she just does not identify to have a home or identify to have a job.

JEFFY: Oh, no. Oh, no. She should just identify as a CEO. She would be making big money.

PAT: Big, big money.

STU: I don't know why she hasn't thought of that. But she still says she's not white. I thought that was interesting. She says, I do think I'm more complex label. Would be helpful. But we don't really have that vocabulary. Yeah, we don't have a word for what you have.

PAT: No.

STU: There's not a -- that's true. Again, this is on us. We have not developed the vocabulary to describe the thing she is. Which, by the way, we have developed that vocabulary. It was white. We nailed it.

(laughter)

STU: But she says --

PAT: She's more comfortable in a different -- in a different light. Right?

STU: Exactly. She says, I feel -- I love that word. I feel like the idea of being trans black, would be much more accurate than I'm white. Because you know I'm not white. Calling myself black feels more accurate than saying I'm white.

So -- so it feels --

JEFFY: I'm sorry. Go ahead. She's just hawking her book. That's why this is such a big deal.

STU: What do you mean?

JEFFY: Her experiences in her memoir, In Full Color. So she just wants us to buy her book.

PAT: I have absolutely no interest in her book.

JEFFY: I have zero interest in that. But it talks about her views on racial identity and her experiences in her memoir, In Full Color. I was listening to her with the food stamps and being back in the news again. And she's back in the news again because she wants us to buy her book.

STU: Well, she apparently needs it. Right?

JEFFY: Right. If she's on food stamps. She's unable to get a job. This is it.

STU: I love this. If Dolezal was exposed in 2015 -- exposed as what? She's white.

She was exposed in 2015 when a local television crew asked her a simple question: Are you African-American?

(laughter)

That must have been an interesting moment to go up and have to ask that question. But, of course, all pictures of her being white and blond from her youth came out. And that kind of blew up her little gig at the NAACP apparently.

PAT: It sure did.

STU: Which is kind of interesting. It's weird in that that is a natural extension of what we just talked about with Chris Cuomo.

JEFFY: It sure is.

STU: Why would this be wrong? Because you can do -- you can take medications -- I mean, we've talked about the old thing with Michael Jackson, which wasn't true. But that he wanted to bleach his skin white because he wanted to be white so bad, right? You can do things to change your outer appearance. But you don't even need to, really. She, I guess, took on some of the attributes as what she thought she was. But it was a lot different than her blond-haired youth. But you can say that Chris Cuomo was on TV. If you missed it last hour, on TV, on national television, saying that a girl with girl parts who wanted -- who identified as a boy -- calling her a girl is mythology. Mythology.

Now, here's a situation -- like, I can understand, we all want to accommodate people and do the best we can to be nice. I get that.

However, to insult every piece of knowledge we've ever had in human history. Part A equals gender A. To say that those things are true, even -- you know, we're talking before the surgery or anything else has happened. That's mythology now. Why wouldn't Rachel Dolezal's story connect? I don't think there's any reason why she isn't treated as respectfully as every single transgendered person that Chris Cuomo is backing here.

Why doesn't she get that same treatment? Why is she without a job? Why is she without a -- without a home, potentially?

PAT: Because she's white. I guess. Just because she's white. Right?

If she were -- but it's only a matter of time, right? It's only because she's the first one. And, again, in our -- in our sphere of awareness, right? She's the first story of a person saying, "I'm actually black, but I'm white."

Now, the guy who works at The Daily News says the same thing. What is his name? Shaun King says the same thing. There's a few of them. But she's one of the first ones that entered into our awareness. And because of that, people are saying, "Come on. Look. I want to accommodate people, but she's obviously white. She's obviously white. And she was trying to say she's black when she's not." That's okay to say today. Guess what, soon it won't be. Soon it won't be.

Soon, the same way you will have people on national television, like Chris Cuomo saying it's mythology to call her white.

That will happen. The only issue -- the only questionable aspect of that is whether Chris Cuomo will remain on television. That's the only questionable aspect of that. He very well may not have that gig at some point. But other than that, that discussion will occur. I mean, it has occurred with certain personalities already. And it will continue to happen. And it will become the thing you're not allowed to say, that Rachel Dolezal is white.

Look, I -- we're not at a point, any of us, that are like, "Oh, well -- I don't want to -- to understand, to accommodate, to do whatever you can." But it's like, we have to at some point have a truth that we can center on. Some foundation of just accuracy. She says -- it feels more accurate to say she's black. But she's not.

(laughter)

STU: I -- do these things need to be said?

PAT: I mean, it might feel more accurate to say that I'm 18 years old because that's how I feel in my head.

STU: Right. I'm young at heart.

PAT: But it's just not the case. Because I'm now in my mid-50s. So, yeah. Yeah.

As if. I mean, the mid-50s are so far in your rearview mirror.

JEFFY: I remember when I broke that mid-50 mark.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: How can you? It was such a long time ago.

PAT: Such a long time ago.

STU: And that will happen. We are there. This stuff is already occurring. To the point that -- you know, this is an interesting discussion. Like, if you had this point -- you're like, this is an interesting discussion. She identifies with many of the cultural things of being black or -- you know, he -- she identifies as many of the -- she feels like she wants to do boy -- things that are typically associated with boys. You know, she called herself a tomboy. She -- and, you know, this is an interesting thing that we're talking about. How does society deal with it? It's not that.

It's, you're a hatemonger, and you're dealing with mythology if you think that the gender she is born in is the gender that she has.

PAT: That's nuts.

STU: That's so far beyond -- it's not a discussion. It's a shutdown of a discussion. Incredible.

PAT: It's nuts. Yeah. And nobody, going back to the way I feel in my head -- because I tell my kids that all the time: I feel like I'm 18 still. In my head, that's kind of where I stopped, I think, was 18. So I identify as such.

But -- so if I -- if I acted as if I were 18 all the time, nobody would accept that. Well, I'm just 18. I identify as 18. What do you mean, why should I be more responsible than that? What are you talking about?

You can't hold me to the standards of a 55-year-old man with six grandkids. You can't do that. I identify as an 18-year-old.

Nobody --

STU: Nobody.

PAT: -- nobody would back me on that. None of these Democrats who are bending over backward for every other minority on this planet would say that's okay.

JEFFY: Well, there was the CEO, the guy that said he was a millennial, right? That was in his 50s. Not very long ago.

PAT: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: That they were all up in arms about.

PAT: And he kept saying he was 34 or something, and he was 55.

JEFFY: And they were all up in arms about him. How dare he.

PAT: Right. Right.

STU: And that's different from me who is actually a millennial. I do not identify --

PAT: According to one source who said a 41-year-old person --

STU: Yes, 1976 was the cutoff date. And I was born in February 1976, which makes me one of the first millennials. So I know better than everybody else.

PAT: Because don't most people say 80 -- 80 is the cutoff date for most?

STU: You know what, I don't know what most people. This is not about most people. It's how I identify, Pat.

PAT: Okay. And you want to be a millennial? Because, man, I would do everything I can to not identify with the millennials.

STU: No kidding.

(laughter)

But technically --

JEFFY: Why?

STU: -- by one source, I am.

However, no sources say a 55-year-old is a millennial. No sources say a white person is a black person.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: No.

STU: And, you know, I guess now a lot of sources do say -- you know, Chris Cuomo goes on in this interview that we played this last hour to say, "Well, the Department of Education says that if you identify as a girl, you're a girl. Or if you identify as a boy, as a boy."

PAT: Yeah, under Barack Obama, they said that. So what?

STU: And also, is the Department of Education, that's the --

PAT: Is it a scientific department now? No, it's a political department.

STU: Uh-huh.

PAT: So politically, you know, that is now accepted, I guess, in some circles. But that's not science. I love how they want to have it both ways. They're all science, until science doesn't agree with them. Then there's nothing to do with science. It's just a feeling. It's just a thought. It's just an attitude.

JEFFY: Don't pay attention to that.

PAT: It's the same thing on climate change. They have it both ways on every single issue.

JEFFY: Yep.

PAT: That would be pretty sweet, if we had it both ways on every issue.

STU: It's an exciting way to live.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And it would be fun. Right? It would be fun to be a liberal for a while, wouldn't it? Where you could just sit back and every -- you never have to worry about past statements. You never have to worry about what you said that disagrees completely with what you're saying right now. You just need to say what benefits you at that exact moment. I mean, that is what we saw throughout the Obama administration.

Whatever benefited him at that exact moment was the thing he supported. And that is a -- it's got to be nice.

PAT: It's a good standard.

STU: I mean, to just be able to forget your history and forget what you said in the past has got to be a nice thing to live under.

PAT: You have to have the media on your side to back you up and let you get away with that standard. But it's a nice standard, if you can have it.

Critical theory destroys truth and justice

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Critical theory once stood out as the absurd progressive notion that it is. Now, its maxims are becoming an integral part of ordinary political discourse. The more you repeat a lie, the more you will believe it, and this is the very dangerous place in which we find ourselves today.

Take this critical theory maxim as an example: If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice. It's a necessary evil, if you will, the necessity of “controlled injustice.”

By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we’ll save the republic. We’ll be acting in a noble way.

This definition of justice is defined by the “oppressed,” not the “oppressor.” It is the greatest happiness for the greatest number. To achieve this justice, however, we need to endorse acts on occasion that, while seemingly unjust, serve a higher purpose. It will ensure the stability and the unity of our republic, and this may manifest in ways that seem contradictory to our values. But these are the necessary shadows to cast light on “true justice.”

And isn’t that what we are all after, anyway?

Here’s another critical theory maxim: Sometimes we find the truth through fabrication. Our pursuit of truth sometimes requires a strategic use of falsehoods. The truth is a construct that has been shaped and tailored to promote the well-being of the collective.

We sometimes need to accept and propagate lies designed by "the system” — not the old system, but the system that we’re now using to replace the old to get more justice through injustice and more truth through fabrication.

We’re engaging in a higher form of honesty. When we fabricate, it’s for the right reason. We are reaching up to the heavens fighting for a higher sort of honesty. To fortify the truth, we occasionally must weave a tapestry of lies. Each thread, essential for the greater picture, will ultimately define our understanding and ensure our unity under this infallible wisdom.

The election is coming up. Does this maxim sound familiar? Many think it is imperative that we secure our republic through election control to maintain our republic. Sometimes, we might need to take actions that by traditional standards might be questionable.

The act of securing elections requires cheating. It's not mere deception. It is a noble act of safeguarding our way of life. We're on the verge of losing this democracy, and without deception, we will lose it.

To ensure it doesn't fall into the hands of those we know will destroy it, we may have to make a few fabrications. We're fabricating stories to be able to control or secure the republic through our elections. By using truth through fabrication and controlled injustice for justice, we'll save the republic. Therefore, we'll be acting in a noble way. Stealing an election from those who wish to harm our society is truly an act of valor and an essential measure to protect our values and ensure the continuation of our just society.

If we desire justice, we must sometimes champion what may appear superficially as injustice.

I know it's a paradox of honor through dishonor. But in this context, by embracing the dishonor, we achieve the highest form of honor, ensuring the stability and the continuation of our great republic.

Let this be heard, far and wide, as a great call to patriotic action. As we advance, let each of us, citizens of this great and honorable republic, consider these principles. Not as abstract or paradoxical but as practical guides to daily life. Embrace the necessity of controlled injustice, the utility of lies, the duty to secure our electoral process, and the honor and apparent dishonor. These are not merely strategies for survival. They are prerequisites for our prosperity.

We all have to remember that justice is what our leaders define, that truth is what our party tells us. Our republic stands strong on the values of injustice for justice, honor through dishonor, and the fabrication of truths. To deviate from this path is to jeopardize the very fabric of our society. Strength through unity; unity through strength.

We've heard this nonsense for so long. But now, this nonsense is becoming an instituted reality, and we are entering perilous times. Don't be fooled by the narratives you will hear during the march to November. Never let someone convince you that the ends justify the means, that a little bit of injustice is needed to achieve a broader, collective vision of justice, that truth sometimes requires fabricated lies and narratives. If we do, justice will cease to be justice, truth will cease to be truth, and our republic will be lost.

Top 5 MOST EVIL taxes the government extorts from you

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images
"In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -Ben Franklin

The injustice of taxation has been a core issue for Americans since the very beginning of our country, and it's a problem we have yet to resolve. This belief was recently reignited in many Americans earlier this month on tax day when the numbers were crunched and it was discovered that the government was somehow owed even more hard-earned money. As Glenn recently discussed on his show, it's getting to be impossible for most Americans to afford to live comfortably, inflation is rising, and our politicians keep getting richer.

The taxpayer's burden is heavier than ever.

The government is not above some real low blows either. While taxes are a necessary evil, some taxes stretch the definition of "necessary" and emphasize the "evil." Here are the top five most despicable taxes that are designed to line the IRS coffers at your expense:

Income Tax

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

"It would be a hard government that should tax its people one-tenth part of their income." -Ben Franklin

On February 24th, 2024 we hit a very unfortunate milestone, the 101st anniversary of the 16th Amendment, which authorized federal income tax. Where does the government get the right to steal directly out of your paycheck?

Death Taxes

Dan Mullan / Staff | Getty Images

"Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes" -George Harrison

Not even in death can you escape the cold pursuit of the tax collector. It's not good enough that you have to pay taxes on everything you buy and every penny you make your entire life. Now the feds want a nice slice, based on the entire value of your estate, that can be as much as 40 percent. Then the state government gets to stick their slimy fingers all over whatever remains before your family is left with the crumbs. It's practically grave-robbery.

Payroll

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -John Marshall

What's that? The nice chunk of your paycheck the government nabs before you can even get it to the bank wasn't enough? What if the government taxed your employer just for paying you? In essence, you make less than what your agreed pay rate is and it costs your employer more! Absolutely abominable.

Social Security

VALERIE MACON / Contributor | Getty Images

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." -Ronald Reagan

Everyone knows the collapse of Social Security is imminent. It has limped along for years, only sustained by a torrent of tax dollars and the desperate actions of politicians. For decades, people have unwillingly forked over money into the system they will never see again.

FICA

Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images

"What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue." -Thomas Paine

FICA is the payroll equivalent of Social Security. Your employer has to match however much you pay. It means it costs your employer even more to pay you—again, you'll NEVER see that money. At this point, are you even working for yourself, or are you just here to generate money for the government to frivolously throw away?

5 DISTURBING ways World War III will be different from previous wars

Oleg Nikishin / Stringer | Getty Images

Has World War III begun?

Over the weekend, Iran launched an unprecedented attack against Israel involving over 300 missiles and drones. This marked the first direct attack on Israel originating from Iranian territory. Fortunately, according to an Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari, 99 percent of missiles and drones were successfully neutralized by Israeli defense systems. Iran claimed that the operation against Israel had concluded and that no further offensive was planned, although the possibility of another attack is still present.

This has left many people, including Glenn, wondering the same thing: did we just witness the start of World War III?

Glenn recently had a World War II Air Force Veteran as a guest on his TV special, who told stories of the horrors he and his brothers-in-arms faced in the skies over war-torn Europe. This was a timely reminder of the terrors of war and a warning that our future, if it leads to another world war, is a dark one.

But, if Glenn's coverage of the Iranian attack revealed one thing, it's that World War III will look nothing like the world wars of the twentieth century. Long gone are the days of John "Lucky" Luckadoo and his "Bloody Hundredth" bravely flying their B-17s into battle. Over the weekend, we saw hundreds of autonomous drones and missiles clashing with extreme speed and precision over several different fronts (including space) simultaneously. This ain't your grandfather's war.

From EMP strikes to cyber attacks, here are FIVE ways the face of war has changed:

EMP attacks

New York Daily News Archive / Contributor | Getty Images

The entire modern world, on every level, is completely dependent on electricity. From your home refrigerator to international trade, the world would come to a grinding halt without power. And as Glenn has pointed out, it wouldn't even be that hard to pull off. All it would take is 3 strategically placed, high-altitude nuclear detonations and the entire continental U.S. would be without power for months if not years. This would cause mass panic across the country, which would be devastating enough on its own, but the chaos could be a perfect opportunity for a U.S. land invasion.

Nuclear strikes

Galerie Bilderwelt / Contributor | Getty Images

Nuclear war is nothing new. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, built fallout shelters, and learned to duck and cover. But times have changed. The Berlin Wall fell and so did the preparedness of the average American to weather a nuclear attack. As technology has advanced, more of our adversaries than ever have U.S. cities within their crosshairs, and as Glenn has pointed out, these adversaries are not exactly shy about that fact. Unfortunately, the possibility of an atomic apocalypse is as real as ever.

Immigration warfare

Nick Ut / Contributor | Getty Images

The strategy of strangling an opposing nation's economy to gain the upper hand is a wartime tactic as old as time. That's why the Border Crisis is so alarming. What better way to damage an opponent's economy than by overburdening it with millions of undocumented immigrants? As Glenn has covered, these immigrants are not making the trek unaided. There is a wide selection of organizations that facilitate this growing disaster. These organizations are receiving backing from around the globe, such as the WEF, the UN, and U.S. Democrats! Americans are already feeling the effects of the border crisis. Imagine how this tactic could be exploited in war.

Cyber shutdowns

Bill Hinton / Contributor | Getty Images

Cyber attacks will be a major tactic in future wars. We've already experienced relatively minor cyber strikes from Russia, China, and North Korea, and it is a very real possibility that one of our adversaries inflicts a larger attack with devastating consequences on the United States. In fact, the WEF has already predicted a "catastrophic" cyber attack is imminent, and Glenn suggests that it is time to start preparing ourselves. A cyber attack could be every bit as devastating as an EMP, and in a world run by computers, nothing is safe.

Biological assault

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

Don't trust the "experts." That was the takeaway many of us had from the pandemic, but something less talked about is the revelation that China has manufactured viruses that are capable of spreading across the globe. We now know that the lab leak hypothesis is true and that the Wuhan lab manufactured the virus that infected the entire world. That was only ONE virus from ONE lab. Imagine what else the enemies of America might be cooking up.

The government is WAGING WAR against these 3 basic needs

NICHOLAS KAMM / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has launched a full-on assault against our basic needs, and people are starting to take notice.

As long-time followers of Glenn are probably aware, our right to food, water, and power is under siege. The government no longer cares about our general welfare. Instead, our money lines the pockets of our politicians, funds overseas wars, or goes towards some woke-ESG-climate-Great Reset bullcrap. And when they do care, it's not in a way that benefits the American people.

From cracking down on meat production to blocking affordable power, this is how the government is attacking your basic needs:

Food

Fiona Goodall / Stringer | Getty Images

Glenn had Rep. Thomas Massie on his show where he sounded the alarm about the attack on our food. The government has been waging war against our food since the thirties when Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. They started by setting strict limits on how many crops a farmer could grow in a season and punishing anyone who grew more—even if it was intended for personal use, not for sale on the market. This sort of autocratic behavior has continued into the modern day and has only gotten more draconian. Today, not only are you forced to buy meat that a USDA-approved facility has processed, but the elites want meat in general off the menu. Cow farts are too dangerous to the environment, so the WEF wants you to eat climate-friendly alternatives—like bugs.

Water

ALESSANDRO RAMPAZZO / Contributor | Getty Images

As Glenn discussed during a recent Glenn TV special, the government has been encroaching on our water for years. It all started when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, which gave the government the ability to regulate large bodies of water. As the name suggests, the act was primarily intended to keep large waterways clear of pollution, but over time it has allowed the feds to assume more and more control over the country's water supply. Most recently, the Biden administration attempted to expand the reach of the Clean Water Act to include even more water and was only stopped by the Supreme Court.

Electricity

David McNew / Staff | Getty Images

Dependable, affordable electricity has been a staple of American life for decades, but that might all be coming to an end. Glenn has discussed recent actions taken by Biden, like orders to halt new oil and gas production and efforts to switch to less efficient sources of power, like wind or solar, the price of electricity is only going to go up. This, alongside his efforts to limit air conditioning and ban gas stoves, it almost seems Biden is attempting to send us back to the Stone Age.