Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Events
Restoring the Covenant
More
AboutBooksCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2020 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Why does Pat think Loretta Lynch could be more extreme than Eric Holder?

January 29, 2015
 Wilson

Writer

Could Obama's nominee for Attorney General be more radical than Eric Holder? With this administration, Pat thinks anything could be possible. During her confirmation hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tried to nail down some questions about her stance on gay marriage which she managed to sidestep. But when questions came up about her stance on torture, she was unequivocal. Why one and not the other?

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

PAT: Yesterday there was a lot of -- a lot of discussion about the attorney general. The attorney general nominee. Loretta Lynch. At first I thought they had nominated Loretta Lynn, the country singer, but it turns out the coal miner's daughter wasn't up for that. She wasn't interested. Is she even alive?

STU: I don't know.

JEFFY: Yeah, she is.

PAT: I don't think she wanted the gig. They went with Loretta Lynch.

JEFFY: She is only in her 80s. Don't worry about it.

PAT: Loretta Lynn?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: She's spry compared to say Robert Byrd.

STU: Or compared to Jeff Fisher, whose birthday is here today at 109 years old.

PAT: Happy birthday, Jeffy. You don't look anything over 203, I'd say.

STU: Yeah. That's fair.

JEFFY: Thank you. I appreciate it.

[laughter]

PAT: All right. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin down Loretta Lynch, our attorney general nominee. This woman is at least as extreme, I think, as Eric Holder.

STU: That's possible.

PAT: Yeah. It's possible. And in this case, with the Bush -- with the Obama administration, it's likely. Because everybody -- everybody that comes into this administration is an extremist, it seems. Can you name a moderate that he's appointed to any position. I can't think of one.

STU: I think people would point to people like Chuck Hagel who was a Republican at one point.

PAT: Chuck Hagel, that's right.

STU: There's been a couple -- secretary of defense holdover. I don't know. Not many. Few and far between.

PAT: No. Not many at all. So Lindsey Graham tried to pin her down on the difference between -- okay, so the same-sex marriage thing is before the Supreme Court. So he was trying to get her to say, all right, is polygamy the next domino to fall because it would seem likely it is. Here's how that exchange went.

GRAHAM: If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriages bans are unconstitutional and violates the US Constitution for a state, try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that's clearly the law of the land, unless there's a constitutional amendment to change it.

What legal rationale would be in play that would prohibit polygamy? What's the legal difference between a state, a ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional, but a ban on polygamy being constitutional? Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the Constitution and the other not?

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I have not been involved in the argument or analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court. So -- and I'm not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point, but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.

PAT: Okay. So she wasn't involved in the argument or the analysis. All right. You know, they're going to say that every time they don't want to answer a question. But she wasn't involved in the argument or analysis. So then they asked her about waterboarding.

VOICE: Do you agree that waterboarding is torture and that it's illegal?

LYNCH: Waterboarding is torture, Senator.

VOICE: And thus illegal?

LYNCH: And thus illegal.

PAT: Wait. I don't think she was involved in the argument or analysis of that either, but she still had an answer somehow on that, that waterboarding is torture, and it is illegal. How can you say that definitively when you weren't involved in the argument or the analysis of that?

STU: I don't know.

PAT: That's kind of weird.

STU: Yeah. I was not involved in the argument or analysis of every episode of Law and Order, but I always have an opinion how it's coming out.

PAT: I don't know why Graham -- well, he sucks.

STU: You mean that he gave up on that?

PAT: Yeah. You don't give up on that. You just push her. Well, I know you were not involved in the argument or analysis, but you've stated an opinion on everything else. Why won't you answer this? The answer to that is, no, there should be no legal barrier to polygamy at the point where same sex becomes the law of the land. Why wouldn't polygamy? I don't understand that. As long as they're consenting adults, I don't understand it. Right?

Because that's the argument for all the other stuff. Why not this too?

STU: Yeah. I think there's a very strong argument to be made there. And, you know, the correct argument I think is, this is why you don't have the government getting involved in people's love life at all.

PAT: At al. Get them out of straight marriage, homosexual marriage. Everything.

STU: Yeah. Do you on your anniversary send a card to the place that gave you the marriage license. Do you make sure that they're a part of the ceremony with you? Do you make sure they're part of the ceremony, and every time we celebrate, do you take them out to dinner as well?

PAT: I have to say, I've been so inconsiderate. I have not done that.

STU: Oh, my gosh. Oh, my gosh. After all they've done for you.

PAT: Throughout my marriage, yeah.

STU: Which is nothing. They don't do anything for anyone.

PAT: Well, they gave us a piece of paper.

STU: To think of this, to allow you to express your love for your wife.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: They gave you -- of thing this as a conservative. We are allowing a system in which we say, okay, government, please give us a piece of paper so we can express who we love. Why don't why do we care about that at all?

PAT: We talked about that quite a few times over the last couple of years. Really it's the only position that makes sense. And glenn has articulated it many times. Get government out of all marriage. Let church handle it. It's a church institution anyway. And if you're an atheist, then go to city hall and do a justice of the peace, so what? Who cares.

STU: Yeah. And you don't have to worry about that if they're out of marriage. You can find someone else you like to do the ceremony for you.

PAT: Like a humanist person.

STU: Right. Weren't you and Glenn at one time ministers in a specific church that may or may not have had a physical location in Modesto, California, perhaps?

PAT: I believe we still are. There's not an expiration.

JEFFY: Once you are, you're still in good standing.

PAT: We can still marry people. And we have in the past.

STU: Yes. And you did it to married people. Think about that again. Okay, so you have to get another license, you have to be a licensed minister so that you can join a union between two licensed people who like each other so you can license their love. Conservatives are like, oh, this sounds great. Really?

PAT: It's been the wrong position from the beginning. We screwed up on that one at the beginning, just like we screwed up on the immigration thing. Should not have fought against illegal immigration. We should have fought for legal immigration. That should have been the battle cry the whole time. And get the government completely out of it.

The Libertarian stance on marriage is the right one. When I was in Salt Lake City a couple of weeks ago, doing the speech for the Eagle Forum and then afterwards, you know, there was a dinner and all that kind of stuff. And one of the local TV stations interviewed me. Their little reporterette came up to me. She wanted a few comments. So, okay.

And I knew it would probably be -- she wanted to do something that would try to trip me up and something she could beat us with. That was in the back of my mind. Sure enough, what was her big deal. The Supreme Court taking up same-sex marriage. And I said, you know, I'd like the government out of all marriage. Yeah, but how do you feel about this? How did this affect the conference when they heard about it? I don't think it affected the conference at all when they heard about it. They just mentioned it, and we kind of moved on and didn't dwell on it.

Well, what do you think about the same-sex marriage amendment.

I said, well, I don't think the government has any business in anybody's marriage. And I think that horse has probably left the barn. I think the Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of same-sex marriage. It will become the law of the land.

STU: You should have just said, I was not involved in the argument or analysis of that particular --

PAT: I should have. But that's the hot button issue that people try to trip you up on when they want to trip you up. And there's no tripping when it's just, get the government out of it. Don't make my church perform a same-sex marriage.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: But if you can find a church that will marry you, and you're a same sex couple, great. Do it. Then the government is completely out of it. But that's not where we are.

As far as the attorney general nominee, Loretta Lynch, she was asked about illegal immigration.

LYNCH: Well, Senator, I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here. Certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

PAT: Isn't that amazing? Here's the attorney general nominee, and she's saying, regardless of how got here, whether they're legal or illegal, I don't care what you're doing. If you've committed identity theft or if you're involved in tax fraud, you have a right to work in the United States of America.

That's the future attorney general?

JEFFY: I would like to see more citizens involved in the workforce in America.

PAT: I think the citizens would like to see that as well. I think the tens of millions who are unemployed would like to see the citizens of this nation be employed, rather than people of illegal status have the right to work. That's insanity.

This is the person who sworn to uphold -- not yet, but she will be. Sworn in to uphold our laws and she doesn't care about them. How do you vote to confirm her?

STU: I don't know. It seems that's what we do now. People get placed into office by somebody, and if they happen to dislike particular laws, they are not enforced. That is not -- I don't remember that with the founders. I don't remember George Washington harping on that particular way of doing business, but that does seem to be where we are. I mean, immigration is the number one thing. How can she be nominated if she had any other stance. The president of the United States has taken this as basically his main pathway of getting things done.

PAT: Yeah. It's inconceivable. And yet, I don't think we know what that word means because we keep using it. It just keeps happening.

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.

Marxist Methods: Debunking the Left's LIES About Critical Race Theory

We've heard a lot about critical race theory lately, and for good reason: It's a racist ideology designed to corrupt our children and undermine our American values. But most of what we see are the results of a process that has been underway for decades. And that's not something the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, and even teachers unions want you to know. They're doing everything in their power to try and convince you that it's no big deal. They want to sweep everything under the rug and keep you in the dark. To fight it, we need to understand what fuels it.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck exposes the deep-seated Marxist origins of CRT and debunks the claims that it's just a harmless term for a school of legal scholarship. Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer joins to argue why we must ban critical race theory from our schools if we want to save a very divided nation.

Watch the full "Glenn TV" episode 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.

Glenn Beck: I'd give up my American citizenship ‘in a heartbeat’ if THIS happens

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck blasted the Democrats — and anyone else on the left — who have been so eager to open our southern U.S. border for the past several months, but also willing to turn a blind eye to the Cuban people in need of help today.

"While we are welcoming people from any country, all over the world, without any kind of information, and setting them into our country, putting them on American planes paid for by American taxpayers," Glenn began. "And our Coast Guard Cutters are turning these [Cuban] people away. Shame on you! Shame on you!"

Glenn said that he's "sick and tired" of hearing about "brave" leftist activists like Colin Kaepernick, who protest the America flag while wearing Che Guevara and Fidel Castro t-shirts. Meanwhile, the Cuban people are risking their lives by taking to the sea to escape their oppressive regime and come to America.

"Anybody who glorifies Che doesn't know their ass from their elbow. You can't call them a human rights activist. You're protesting the American flag, because you so deeply believe in the right to be free? And yet, you wear a Che T-shirt?" Glenn said.

Glenn went on to argue that, even though the left has "bastardized" the meaning of our country, he still believes America is the best nation on Earth. In fact, he'd give up his citizenship "in a heartbeat" if another country could prove to be better, more noble, and more free. But no other nation exists like ours, he said, which is why it's so imperative we fight for freedom here, in Cuba, and around the world.

Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn explain:

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.

'They believe their job is to REMAKE your child': WSJ writer warns public schools may be LOST to woke trans activism

There's a new "reality" spreading, and the mere act of questioning it has become incredibly dangerous, Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Abigail Shrier told Glenn on the most recent episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast."

Shrier's book, "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters," exposes the radical gender activism that — like critical race theory — has overtaken our children's schools and culture. But even worse, she warned, it could end your parental rights for good.

Shrier made it clear she is by no means "anti-trans," but simply speaking up against the extremes of this new "reality" has made her enemy No. 1 to many activists. Her book has been bashed so hard by the Left that Target has stopped selling it twice, Amazon once banned ads for it, and the American Booksellers Association even called sending it to others "a serious, violent incident."

In the clip below, Shrier explained why she believes "there may be no hope for the public school system."

"You have teachers behaving like activists across the country who have no interest in actually teaching. They believe their job is to remake your child," she asserted. "We're seeing so much evidence of that, I think it's fair to say that it may be too deeply rooted in the ideology being taught in public school. I'm not sure that the public school system is redeemable at this point."

Watch the video clip below for more or find the full podcast with Abigail Shrier here:

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.