Do your own homework: 1/19/2011

Check out the notes from Glenn's producer's meeting

INSULT SOT MONTAGE

JOE BIDEN, SEPT. 15, 2008, FLAT ROCK, MICHIGAN

  • All this stuff about how different Barack Obama is, they’re not just used to somebody really smart. They’re just not used to somebody who’s really well educated.

JOHN KERRY SOT, Oct 2006

  • You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.

PRES. BILL CLINTON, SEPT. 26, 2010

  • so far, they've gathered up about everybody for this Tea Party but the Mad Hatter and Alice in Wonderland will give it to them, I think

ED RENDELL 60 MINUTES

  • You guys don’t get that. (Stahl off cam: I do get that) You’re idiots. You’re simpletons if you don’t get that.

INSULT QUOTES

PRES OBAMA

  • (Rolling Stone, Oct. 2010) It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election… The idea that we’ve got a lack of enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that people are sitting on their hands complaining, is just irresponsible.”

  • (Sept. 2010 Fundraiser in Philly) “Folks wake up! This is not some academic exercise.”

  • (April 6, 2008 Fundraiser in San Francisco) And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations

REP STEVE ISRAEL (D-NY) to constituents healthcare town hall, Oct 2009

  • stop calling me a liar and listen

BILL MAHER

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-smart-president_b_253996.html>

  • Or take the health care debate we're presently having: members of Congress have recessed now so they can go home and "listen to their constituents." An urge they should resist because their constituents don't know anything
  • this country is like a college chick after two Long Island Iced Teas: we can be talked into anything, like wars, and we can be talked out of anything, like health care. We should forget town halls, and replace them with study halls. There's a lot of populist anger directed towards Washington, but you know who concerned citizens should be most angry at? Their fellow citizens.
  • And if you want to call me an elitist for this, I say thank you. Yes, I want decisions made by an elite group of people who know what they're talking about. That means Obama budget director Peter Orszag, not Sarah Palin.

WOODROW WILSON AT PRINCETON

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_wilson.html

  • To make the university attractive to serious scholars, Wilson planned to abolish Princeton’s fraternity-like eating clubs, filled with some of the school’s richest and laziest students. While Wilson’s proposals were initially well received, they soon became the objects of strong resistance from conservative trustees and rich alumni. As a result of the highly publicized battle, Wilson gained a national reputation for not only advocating educational reform, but for fighting social inequity.

‘The Chosen’

http://books.google.com/books?id=zwf-Ofc--toC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+chosen&hl=en&ei=ECM3TentBMSBlAfSg8SSAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=woodrow%20wilson&f=false

  • Wilson could not bear to see his alma mater fall from the top ranks. As he had noted in “Princeton in the Nation’s Service” the school had played a critical role in the formation of the United States, and he believed it was destined to play a central role in its future.

Woodrow Wilson’s commencement address at Princeton University, October 21, 1896

http://infoshare1.princeton.edu/libraries/firestone/rbsc/mudd/online_ex/wilsonline/indn8nsvc.html

  • It moves her sons very deeply to find Princeton to have been from the first what they know her to have been in their own day: a school of duty. The revolutionary days are gone, and you shall not find upon her rolls another group of na mes given to public life that can equal her muster in the days of the Revolution and the formation of the government…. It has been Princeton's work, in all ordinary seasons, not to change but to strengthen society, to give, not yeast, but bread for the raising.
  • It is in this wise Princeton has come into our own hands; and today we stand as those who would count this force for the future. The men who made Princeton are dead; those who shall keep it and better it still live: they are even ourselves. Shall we not ask, ere we go forward, what gave the place its spirit and its air of duty? 'We are now men, and must accept in the highest spirit the same transcendent destiny; and not pinched in a corner, not cowards fleeing before a revolution, but redeemers and benefactors, pious aspirants to be noble clay plastic under the Almighty effort, let us advance and advance on chaos and the dark!"

Woodrow Wilson gave on October 24, 1914 at Pittsburg. The title of the speech is “The Power of Christian Young Men

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=19484 <http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=19484>

  • I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.

D/E BLOCKS

TRT: 3/3 MINUTES

BELOW

1.     TIFF’S NOTE ON D/E

2.    WSJ OPED: OBAMA IS ANTI-BUSINESS

3.    AVAILABLE ELEMENTS

===================================

D/E DISTRIBUTIVE IMPACT

§  YOU KNOW WHAT GOT HIM IN TROUBLE- EVERYONE SAID HE WAS A SOCIALIST.

§  PLAY "JOE THE PLUMBER" SOUND

§  PLAY OBAMA SOUND ON HIGHER TAXES... QUESTIONS-- EVEN IF IT HURTS, ITS FAIR

§  HERE HE IS ON ENERGY RATES-  NECESSARILY SKYROCKET

§  HE IS ELITIST, HE KNOWS BETTER THAN YOU, YOUR RATES WILL SKYROCKET- HE’S NOT TRYING TO HURT YOU, HE IS JUST TRYING TO REGULATE WHAT IS FAIR, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THAT YOU ARE NOW SEEING PHASE 2 OF WHAT WAS COMING- I TOLD YOU 2 YEARS AGO WHAT WAS COMING

§  I TOLD YOU THEY WERE BUILDING A MACHINE…

§  SOT GB: CONGRESS IRRELEVANT- THE IMPACT OF GB SAYING CONRESS IREELEVANT IS REGULATIONS

§  SOT: GB: CASS DANGEROUS

§  THEY LOST CONGRESS- IT NO LONGER MATTERS, THEY ARE IRRELEVANT- AND AS LONG AS THEY KEEP US ARGUIING ABOUT POLITICS, TUCSON AND LIMBAUGH YOU WONT PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, REGULATION- NOW WHAT THEY TOUTED YESTERDAY "WE'LL MAKE IT BETTER FO BUSEINESS' THERE IS NOT A BUSINESS PERSON WITHIN THE SOUND OF MY VOICE THAT THINGS REGUALTING FAIRNESS DISTRIBUTUION IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS. ITS THE HIDDEN AGENDA ...

===================================

WSJ OPED ON OBAMA – HE’S ANTI-BUSINESS

QUOTE TO USE FROM BELOW OPED –

§  It took 718 days. The order Mr. Obama signed Tuesday "reaffirms the principles" of the Clinton order with a few tweaks. In weighing costs and benefits, for instance, agencies may now consider "equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts." (The Chamber of Commerce didn't mention that.) But it also mandates "greater coordination" to avoid "redundant, inconsistent or overlapping" rules, which sounds smart—if it actually happens.

FULL OPED

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704678004576090351092971860.html

§  Barack Obama didn't turn into the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan when he signed an executive order titled "improving regulation."

§  He didn't disavow the Dodd-Frank Act nor his new health-care law, both of which increase government's role in the economy.

§  He didn't instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to cease efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by regulation nor exhort the Federal Communications Commission to abandon its "net neutrality" quest.

§  He didn't promise to hold off on any of the 224 major rules that the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute says are in the pipeline, up from 184 last year.

§  David Wessel looks at whether President's Obama's pledge to cut through the regulatory red tape will produce real results and does it suggest he's been too heavy handed over the past two years? Plus, new ways to clear snow with less effort.

§  Indeed, while the White House was assuaging executives who have been kvetching about regulation, the Treasury secretary was convening the new Financial Stability Oversight Council to pursue just a few of the new rules for the financial system mandated by Dodd-Frank.

§  So did the president actually change anything? Did he swipe a talking point from Republicans to show that he really does care about the economy? Or was this an admission that his appointees have spent the past two years making up for lost time, pushing so many rules that they may have hurt the economy?

§  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce seemed to think the latter, lauding the president for a step toward "restoring balance to government regulations." So did Public Citizen, a consumer-advocacy group, which condemned the president for going in "the wrong direction."

§  Not so, insisted Jacob Lew, who oversees all this as head of the White House Office of Management and Budget. "This is not a radical change in direction, but it is an important inflection point," he said. The president, he said, has formalized "a set of practices that are consistent with what we have been doing," making it "much more likely that things will go through the agencies reflecting that approach."  That hardly sounds like a 180-degree turn.

§  Yet listen to John Graham, George W. Bush's point man on regulation and now dean of Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs: "President Obama has acquired or is asserting more new regulatory authority over business than any president in modern history. He is trying to counteract a growing perception that he is 'anti-business."'

§  "This initiative, even if primarily symbolic, is a modest step in the right direction," Mr. Graham said. After all, this is a presidency distinguished until now by the insistence that the American financial system and economy were under-regulated. Clearly, the president is changing the tone. Whether he is changing the substance depends on how hard he resists the urge to regulate.

§  A bit of history: In 1981, Ronald Reagan issued an executive order asserting centralized White House review over executive-branch agency regulation-writing, requiring the first cost-benefit tests and empowering a new Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to block regulatory-happy agencies. In 1993, Bill Clinton issued his own order, different in tone and substance but keeping the OIRA architecture.

§  The Clinton order lasted six years into George W. Bush's presidency. But a lot depends on how the White House uses its power. In the Bush years, says Michael Livermore of New York University Law School's Institute for Policy Integrity, "the actual practice changed significantly" and "informal reviews" essentially derailed rules secretly. In 2007, Mr. Bush replaced the Clinton order with his own, among other things, strengthening the role of political appointees.

§  Less than two weeks after his inauguration, Mr. Obama revoked the Bush order. He appointed a head of OIRA, Cass Sunstein, who had championed warnings, disclosures and incentives over rigid rules. The president said "a great deal has been learned" since the 1993 order, and gave his staff 100 days to come up with a new, modern process.

§  It took 718 days. The order Mr. Obama signed Tuesday "reaffirms the principles" of the Clinton order with a few tweaks. In weighing costs and benefits, for instance, agencies may now consider "equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts." (The Chamber of Commerce didn't mention that.) But it also mandates "greater coordination" to avoid "redundant, inconsistent or overlapping" rules, which sounds smart—if it actually happens.

§  In a move that could, if taken seriously, make a difference, Mr. Obama told agencies to scour the books for obsolete rules. Sort of. Within 120 days, each agency is to devise "a preliminary plan...to periodically review its existing significant regulations" to see which should be "modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed." That drew applause from business and regulatory skeptics. In fact, Mr. Clinton made a similar demand in his 1993 order.

§  All this turns on whether Mr. Obama and his appointees act on his words. "An executive order is like a CEO memo to employees," said Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "To the extent the employees don't follow through, they feel the wrath of the CEO—to the extent he experiences any wrath."

§  Watch what they do, not what they say.

===================================

ELEMENTS AVAILABLE

OBAMA TO JOE THE PLUMBER

§  October 12, 2008: It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, they've got a chance at success too… Everybody is so pinched, that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around its good for everybody.

OBAMA ON HIGHER TAXES/HURT-FAIRNESS

WORKING ON THIS, MIGHT JUST BE A MONTAGE…

OBAMA ON ELECTRICITY RATES

§  Jan 2008: Under my plans of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.

GLENN ON CONGRESS IRRELEVANT

§  BECK: I think Congress is over-playing their hand. More importantly, I think they're being outplayed and outmaneuvered. I think they're making themselves irrelevant to a massive, new federal framework that Obama seems to be erecting and all kinds of - with all kinds of czars and everything else.

GLENN ON CASS – EARLIEST DATE FOUND

§  December 7, 2009: "Also, another fan of this, regulatory czar Cass Sunstein. This is the most dangerous man in America. He likes the idea of this."

FS FROM WSJ ARTICLE

§  In weighing costs and benefits, for instance, agencies may now consider "equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts."

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.