Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
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

'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?

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

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

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.