What was the president doing instead of marching in France?

The president's lack of attendance at the rally against terrorism in Paris continued to be a topic of conversation on radio today. Not only did the President not attend, but Attorney General Eric Holder, who was in Paris Sunday, left the country hours before the rally.

Fox's Ed Henry got into a tense exchange with Josh Earnest concerning President Obama's lack of attendance, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu making the event. During the exchange Henry asked Earnest "What was he doing on Sunday? We haven't gotten an accounting what the -- the president did on Sunday." Unfortunately, Earnest's statement did not do much to absolve the president from his fopaux against the French, saying "I haven't spoken to the president about what he did yesterday."

Glenn, Pat and Stu took to radio this morning to discuss in detail two very important questions.

The first, what was the president doing on Sunday?

While Glenn provided the president the benefit of the doubt concerning his lack of attendance in Paris, saying "Let's just say...they asked him [the president] not to come. And Hollande said, Mr. President, your security is too onerous, please don't come."

Glenn reiterated the point that a lack of attendance in Paris does not mean we should have done nothing. Glenn even suggested something that the president could have done in place of attending the rally, saying, "I as the president of the United States would counter with, one, because I believe it and, two, I know what's going to happen to me. I say this, okay, but here's the thing, I and my family want to be with the French ambassador in a church or with a small gathering and a candlelight vigil at the same time so I'm standing in solidarity with the French here in American space."

The second question is equally as important as the first. What was so pressing that Attorney General Eric Holder had to leave Paris and was not able to stay a few hours for the rally?

Glenn strongly disagreed with Holder's absence, saying "Did the attorney general have such a tin year that he couldn't hear the cries of the streets? That he had such cold and callous heart, that when he got there, he couldn't sense the people in the room that he was meeting with who said, hey, we have to end this now because I have to go to the rally...he [Holder] couldn't sense, you know what I should be here. These are my counterparts. These are my comrades. I'm here to listen to them -- I need to show my support."

While our leadership failed us, we should not let them define who we are. When America was attached on September 11, 2001 the French magazine Le Monde released a headline saying, “We Are All Americans.”

In a message to the French, let us remember, we are all French, and we understand your sorrow.

Rough transcript provided below:

GLENN: Right. He didn't ask that question. Now the reason why he did ask that question and he does know what the president was doing. The president was most likely watching football. But you cannot say the president was watching football. So you have to say the any other president could have answered it this way. And it could have been a total lie, but he could have answered it this way.

The president and his family attended church, where they said a prayer as a family and stood in their house of worship in solidarity with the French people and prayed for the victims and prayed for peace. Then he went home and spent the afternoon in quiet reflection in the private residence with his family.

That would have shut everybody up. But he couldn't say that. Because nobody would have believed that. The president doesn't go to church. And nobody would have believed that he was down on his knees with his family praying and in quiet reflection for the day because that's not -- he may have thought about it. He may have been talking about it as a family. I'm not saying he's a horrible guy. But nobody believes he's in quiet prayerful reflection. That's just not what he does. So he doesn't have that option.

So he had no place to go.

PAT: It's amazing they couldn't lie -- they lie about everything else. But that's one too far.

GLENN: That's a bridge you just cannot -- the suspension bridge is just too big of a span.

PAT: And you're right. It would have been so easy to dismiss it in that way. Even though he doesn't go to church. Everybody knows. He spent the day in quiet reflection with his family.

GLENN: He could have said that. He didn't say that. Because it's so far out of their reality. They don't even consider that.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it's insane. If the president didn't want to go, but the president believed in this, the president would have said, look, let's just say -- let's say he's being a martyr. Let's say he's willingly putting himself up because they did ask Benjamin Netanyahu not to go. They asked him not to come. And Hollande said, Mr. President, your security is too onerous, please don't come. That could have happened. Let's say that could happen. I as the president of the United States would counter with, one, because I believe it and, two, I know what's going to happen to me. I say to this, okay, but here's the thing, I and my family want to be with the French ambassador in a church or with a small gathering and a candlelight vigil at the same time so I'm standing in solidarity with the French here in American space.

So I want an event here in American space that everyone can see and not just for political cover, but because I believe it. Everyone knows the Americans are standing with the French. I know you don't want my security there. My security is too onerous. So I didn't go. Because I didn't want to cause a problem. But it was important for me -- see, he can't even say that. Because he couldn't answer the question. Why didn't you send someone else? It moves on. This moves on to, okay, so Eric Holder is there. He says he has to be back by Sunday night. Does his child have a recital that he had to go see? What was Eric Holder -- he was there -- there's two questions --

PAT: His 40-year-old child had a recital.

GLENN: He was there. So, one, what was so pressing that he had to get on a return flight immediately? And, by the way, I doubt that the attorney general flew Lufthansa Airlines. I'm pretty sure he took a state plane. So you can't hold it at the tarmac for an extra two hours? You can't push the attorney general's meeting back for an extra two hours. Nobody asked this question yet. What was it that the attorney general had to do that was so pressing that he couldn't delay his stay or departure for another two hours. What was it?

So we have two people missing in action again. What difference does it make, Hillary Clinton would say. A lot. You're lying to us.

Okay. So what was it that he could not delay? And, two, did the attorney general have such a tin year that he couldn't hear the cries of the streets? That he had such cold and callous heart, that when he got there, he couldn't sense the people in the room that he was meeting with who said, hey, we have to end this now because I have to go to the rally. He had such a cold heart and tin ear that he couldn't sense, you know what I should be here. These are my counterparts. These are my comrades. I'm here to listen to them -- I need to show my support. Did he make a phone call to the White House and say you need to delay whatever I have? Did he call the White House? Did he call his office? Did he call his kid's school? Did he do any of that and say, I need to stay here.

The answer is no. So I have two questions for the American people: Are you done yet? Are you done yet? Press, are you done yet? Are you done being lied to? Because I really want to know. What is the difference between this and what the president lectured the UN against?

Featured image courtesy of the AP

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.