The Oval: End the blame game

It's my fault.

I did it.

I messed up.

Blame me. Nobody else. Me.

When was the last time you heard a leader - in politics, in sports, in business, in culture - say any of these things? It's rare. It's so rare that you can probably recall only one or two times.

It's not because there isn't blame to be taken. It's not because people have stopped messing up. It's because people have stopped taking responsibility for their mistakes.

This past week, Egypt elected an Islamic radical as its next president. Egypt is lost to the West, and what was once a stable nation will now be

an exporter of violence.

Make no mistake, this was a colossal error of American foreign policy. It's as bad as when the communists took china, and when Saigon fell.

And yet, who is taking the blame? Less than two years ago, when the streets of Cairo were on fire, our Secretary of State said Egypt is a stable place, a secure place. She said we had nothing to fear from the democracy movement. She said the Muslim Brotherhood would go nowhere near the presidential palace.

She was wrong. And now, because we didn't take action, America is less respected, less feared and less secure.

As a leader, you can't say: "well, I got bad information." You can't blame someone else.

If you want credit when things go right, you have to take blame for when things go wrong.

And let's not beat around the bush. Egypt has gone horribly, horribly wrong. Someone in Washington should accept blame for screwing things up.

Perhaps it's not fair to blame someone for 100% of what happened.

But shouldn't someone step up and say: "Blame me? I misjudged things. I thought the Egyptian people would establish a fully functioning democratic system with checks and balances and protections for coptic christians and a free press and all that."

"I guess I was wrong."

What about hearing a little contrition from the people who confidently passed an expensive, massive health care law without thinking of the

constitutional issues? What about a little "I'm sorry" from those members of congress and the administration?

They dragged the country through a year of partisan debate. They loaded up debt. Raised taxes. Ignored the polls. Left our health insurance markets in shambles. And when someone asked them: Is this constitutional? they brushed it off.

How about a little accountability? But I suppose that might be too much to ask. After all, we should not expect accountability from our leaders until we get it from ourselves. Take the economy. Look, I think the economic policies of our president are a disaster. Don't get me wrong. But they are just a variation on a theme. Democrat or Republican, most economic policy ideas have it upside down.

As long as we expect Washington to deliver us from economic ruin, all we will get are economic ideas where Washington ends up with more power.

Washington is like a hammer - the whole world, as far it's concerned, is a nail that needs to be smashed over and over again. The hammer must do its work.

All Washington knows is political power. And that means an economy controlled more and more by politics, lobbyists and people in the

government bureaucracy. But that's not how a free market works. We all know that opportunity and prosperity starts at home. Away from Washington. It starts with hard work. Innovation. Creativity. Saving and investing. Long hours. Accepting risk. And yes, accepting our own failures.

None of those things depends on Washington. And Washington can't fix what's broke in America. That's why we have to start accepting where responsibility really lies. It lies within each of us.

When the housing bubble burst, everyone wanted to blame the bankers. For pushing the loans. For lying about the mortgages. For running up debts and then asking for bailouts.

It was an outrage. But behind every bad mortgage was someone who took on more than they should have. Someone who lied about their income. Someone who said: I can flip this house in six weeks and make a fast buck.

So yes, blame the bankers. Blame the bailout. But blame the borrowers, too. They were part of this mess. But ultimately, the blame game is taking us nowhere. The blame game doesn't bring democracy to Egypt. Doesn't fix our economy. Doesn't end the housing crisis.

We still need solutions.

We still need ideas.

And if we are going to move forwards, we have to end the blame game. We have to say: choose me. I'll fix this. I'll do what needs to be done. We can't wait for Washington to fix our problems. They just create more of them.

We have to do this work ourselves. We have to take responsibility. Because ultimately, it's our life. It's our community. It's our nation. And it's our future.

Past presidents and leaders have understood this. When the Bay of Pigs mission failed in cuba in 1961, President Kennedy went out and he spoke to the nation, and took full, personal responsibility. When the Iran hostage rescue mission failed in 1979, President Jimmy Carter went on TV. President carter is not my idea of a great president, but on that day, he did the honorable thing. He said: "It was my decision to attempt the rescue operation. It was my decision to cancel it ... The responsibility is fully my own."On the eve of D-Day, in 1944, General Eisenhower drafted a short statement and put it into his pocket. It said the following: The troops, the Air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone." He was willing to stake his personal reputation and legacy, all of it, to events beyond his control. To the execution of thousands of commands. To the heroism of young men he hardly knew and who he would never meet.

At any stage, any of it could go wrong. Many things did go wrong. But the mission went right.

All that followed was a reflection of that simple law of the universe: It's amazing what people can do when nobody cares who gets the credit - and when everyone is willing to take the blame.

Thanks for watching.

God bless you and may God bless the Republic.

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


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.