"I am so sick of the lack of accountability": Glenn exposes huge issues with education system in wake of "horrific" sex ed photos

The media suddenly wants to know did a California middle school take it too far with their sex education class? Honest-to-goodness, that’s what I heard, did they take it too far? Did they cross the line? I know, it’s a super-tough question. The school used a series of posters on the myths of contraception. I can’t even show it.

Supposedly it’s an attempt at humor in the classroom, but it is so vile and so disgusting, especially the other one. This one is so, I mean, porn stars would be repulsed. Jeffy would be repulsed. I’m not even going to try to explain at what this is. It is that offensive, and this was seen by middle schoolers. And it is, it’s beyond reprehensible. And if you really want to know, these are up on TheBlaze.com, but I want to warn you that you’ll never unsee these pictures, definitely never unsee them. But the answer is once you see them, oh yeah, absolutely, uh huh, yeah over the line, so far over the line it’s like I can’t even see…there was a line here someday?

We are so messed up right now, up is down, and down is up. Right is wrong, and wrong is right. If you just turn around right now, the entire country, our society, is going this direction. If you just turned around and went 180 degrees in the opposite direction, you would have a very good shot of being exactly right. The school can’t even decide this themselves. They want parents to know they’re going to review those materials. They’re going to get to the bottom of it. Let me translate, because I’m a recovering alcoholic, so I spoke bull crap for a long time. Let me translate bull crap to English for you. They don’t care. They’re hoping that everybody will lose interest, and they can stop pretending to care.

If I showed you the graphic sexual content, and I went into a middle school, I will tell you that I would most likely be charged with a crime. People would want my mug shot put up on a website warning everybody child abuser, dirt bag lives right here, warning, dirt bag, don’t let this guy in. But teachers, teachers, good teachers, people that we know, are remaining silent because the school board says it’s okay, and they’re using it for educational purposes. Right, it makes total sense, doesn’t it?

I am so sick of the account of - did you see the Diane Sawyer interview with Hillary Clinton last night where they’re like, you know, so you had some responsibility? Hillary Clinton says no, not me. No, I had no responsibility on Benghazi. I’m so sick of the accountability, the lack of accountability from people who are taking our tax dollars to keep us safe or to educate our children, and now they’re well, we’re looking into it. No, they’re not. No, they’re not. They’re not. You know it, and I know it, they’re not. They’re just wearing you down and trying to get you to shhh, quiet. Don’t.

If the government didn’t have a monopoly on education, if parents weren’t trapped and essentially forced to send their kids to public schools, maybe, just maybe, the school would have something to worry about, but they don’t. They don’t. Maybe they’d wake up one day, and they’d go where is everybody? Oh yeah, we meant to tell you, all the parents took their kids to the school down the street because they’re not trying to teach propaganda or show, you know, sick pictures to the children, you know, to turn all the children into sexual deviants or whatever.

Maybe we should stop the sex talk and stop the liberal indoctrination. What do you think? A little competition would be nice, a little choice, and that is exactly why the Republicans and the Democrats are against it. Conform, conform, conform, conform – don’t. We have a system now because of the lack of choice, it breeds incredible arrogance. In the face of the obvious wrong, they’ll say we’re going to look into it. What is there to review? What is there?

It’s child abuse. Fire somebody. I want the names of the people who looked at that and went yeah, that’s pretty good. It was approved by the school board, and then it was taught by the teachers. Are the teachers so worn down now that whatever’s handed to them they just go yeah, and then we’re going to round up all the Jewish kids? I mean, are they that worn down? No teacher said, “Hey, you know, this is really sick”?

I will tell you something, that picture that we didn’t show here, that picture, I wouldn’t even show it to my wife. But if my wife was the educator, if my wife was the teacher, she would have gone to the principal or to the school board or anybody else and said, “What the hell are you thinking?”

Now, they’re saying that this “was not the work of a teacher, but was produced by Mountain Empire Family Medicine.” Oh, okay, so the doctors said it was okay, all right. So they’re okay with sexual material being taught to middle school children as long as it’s done by, you know, medical practitioners. Or is it that they are completely incompetent, and at any moment they could start teaching oh, I don’t know, Debbie Does Dallas, XXXX-rated porn? Eleven-year-olds, they wouldn’t know the difference – hey, movie day. Which one is it?

Should be a little alarm bell that is ringing in everyone’s head, yeah, we’ll review it. You’ll review it? Good grief. Government agencies shut down restaurants for days if the temperature of the refrigerator is off by two degrees, but a school can stay open when it is peddling nasty pornographic material to kids, stuff that you and I would be on the front page of the paper for if we did. Parents should be yanking their kids out of this school, but they won’t. They won’t because we’re taught to conform.

Modern America, we instead argue. Well, what is appropriate content sexually for school? I’ll tell you what’s appropriate sexual content for school, nothing, nothing, zero, none of it. Who on earth thinks it’s a good idea for the government to be in charge of teaching kids when and how they should be using their genitalia? They can’t even figure out the bathroom situation. They’re going to teach my kids what’s right and wrong, really? Really?

They’re the ones who say this is a deadly weapon. Yeah, I’m going to listen to these people. Schools won’t even teach kids, are incapable of teaching people how to manage their personal finances, but they’re going to tell them how to master what’s down in their pants, really? Somehow their duty to instruct preteens on the proper way to do every possible form of sexual activity ever invented, gee, what could I do with this pen, teacher?

I mean, we used to joke, I’ll tell you what you can do with that pen. Now, I think that’s part of the instruction. Think how ridiculous this is that we’ve been told that we parents are not capable of teaching our own children about the roles that sex plays in life, when it’s appropriate, when it’s not appropriate to engage in it. We’re told to hand that task off to an expert from a government institution. What is wrong with us? We accept this. How did it happen? How did it happen?

Progressives, that’s it, progressives, taking control of your children little by little, getting them to conform and you to conform and getting you to be uncomfortable with standing up, I know, shh, don’t say anything, just leave it alone, don’t stand up – stand up. The sales pitch here was well, we needed medically accurate information. Really? Really? I want you to go to the website, and I want you to look at those nasty-ass pictures, and you tell me if that’s medically accurate.

Yeah, and we have to do that because well, kids are going to be kids. They’re going to have sex anyway, no matter how many times people tell them not to, so we have to make sure they do it safely. Good, then I’ll tell you what, let’s bring guns into the classroom, and let’s teach them how to use guns safely. What do you say? We’ll bring the NRA in. Let’s have them teach that because they’re going to do it anyway, right? That’s your theory, not mine, they’re going to do it anyway. Why are you trying to teach them this is wrong if they’re going to do it anyway? Can you answer that? No, no, nope.

Kids will be kids, and I hate that argument. We’re treating kids as if they’re just nothing more than stupid animals. They’re not. They’re unable to exercise any discernment, any self-control. Follow that logic, follow that logic, because if you do, it’s pointless to tell kids to abstain from sex because they’re going to just do it anyway.

Well, why bother to tell them about contraception really because why would we expect them to suddenly listen to that advice when they’re going to do it anyway? Why would we expect them to do anything? They’re going to do it anyway. It’s all a lie. It is a lie. You are capable of teaching this to your children. You are capable as a parent. Kids are capable of making decisions right now on what’s right and what’s wrong.

The government doesn’t even know itself what’s right and wrong anymore. They’re trying to figure it out as they go. You know what’s right and wrong. You’ve been trained to conform. Our kids have been trained to conform. We’ve all been trained we can’t figure it out on our own. It is your responsibility to educate your children, especially on matters of sex or anything else, but we’re trained to think it’s not our job.

The current school model serves to undermine the authority of the parent while elevating the teacher or the policeman or the politician or the nurse or anybody else, just not you. I ask you to strongly challenge the current system. Do not conform. Consider homeschooling if you can if there’s any way. It’s worth selling your car. It’s worth living in a smaller house. Do it. You can do it. But if you do, do not unplug from the school district. You’re still paying for that slop, and those kids are living around you.

We have a responsibility. Don’t let the education of your child begin and end at a government-run school. You will not recognize your kid after the indoctrination for 12 years. You train them up. You raise them up as the right way to go. It’s your job. It’s your right. It is your responsibility. I wasn’t there in the bedroom that night with you guys. You and your husband or your wife were. It’s your job. Mine, my kids. No one can ever take that away from us. We should never give that response away. That responsibility is a profound blessing to each of us.

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

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

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?