The 'big winner' for Glenn in Thursday's debate

With Glenn off radio for a month, last night's debate was a great way for him to see some of the GOP candidates in action. Let's face it, Glenn has made it very clear that certain candidates (*cough* Ted Cruz *cough*) are strong front runners. That's why Glenn's revelation of who he thought won the debate was so surprising.

Before Thursday's debate, Glenn considered Senator Marco Rubio kind of a "question mark" as a candidate.

"You're not really sure who he is. You haven't seen a lot of him," Glenn said on radio Friday.

Glenn went on to declare Rubio not only the winner of the debate, but also someone he might consider supporting.

"I think he really truly believes things. Because of what he said last night and what he said on CNN this morning," Glenn said, referencing Rubio's interview with Chris Cuomo talking about his stance on abortion.

Watch the video or read the full transcript of the segment below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it may contain errors.

GLENN: I said earlier that the big -- the big winner from last night, I thought, because he was so likable and he was so strong on things, that he went up in my head on placement. I didn't change who -- I'm for Ted Cruz.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But I'm looking -- okay, if Ted Cruz doesn't get the nod, who can get it. All right. Number two for me is Rand Paul. Now, Marco Rubio was one of those guys who I was like, okay, if Ted doesn't get it. Who else is there?

GLENN: Marco Rubio moved up a lot last night for me. One of the things he said -- and I think Stu is right on this. Stu said earlier today, I think he's not a guy who is playing politics. I think he really truly believes things. Because of what he said last night and what he said on CNN this morning.

This is not going to be popular in the popular -- in the general election. And it's really kind of -- I don't know if it's that popular with all of the Republicans as well.

PAT: He's not worried about that though.

GLENN: I know that.

PAT: Like you were just saying, this is his position. He's proud of his position. He's not ashamed of it in any way. And he defends it really well.

GLENN: Here he is this morning on CNN with Chris Cuomo talking about his stance on abortion.

MARCO: Science has decided when it's human life.

CHRIS: Science has not decided it's at conception.

MARCO: Let me correct you. Science has -- absolutely it has. Science has concluded absolutely it has. What else can it be? It cannot turn into an animal. It can't turn into a donkey. The only thing that can become is a human being.

(cross-talk)

CHRIS: Look, of course, I understand the logic, but it's a little too simple.

MARCO: It's a human life. It cannot be anything else.

CHRIS: Senator, I understand that. But that's oversimplifying it a little bit.

(cross-talk)

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Stop. He's exactly right.

PAT: Oh, he's crushing Cuomo here.

GLENN: There's nothing else it can be. So when does life begin? When does it become a human? It is at the moment of conception. Because there's nothing else -- it won't grow into a shoe. It won't grow into a tumor. It's a child, period.

CHRIS: -- this is a presented argument of science. In having a DNA map, so does a plant. It's about when it becomes a human being. I'm not saying what I think in answer to that question. That's not my position. But don't you think if you want to be a leader of the future, that's a question that deserves an answer that is definitive beyond your faith. When does life begin? None of you are calling for any type of panel for conception.

MARCO: At conception. At conception.

CHRIS: That's your faith. That's your faith. That's not science.

MARCO: No, it isn't.

CHRIS: It is not definitive science.

MARCO: It absolutely is.

CHRIS: I'll have scientists all morning from all walks of life who will say, we cannot say it is definitely human life at conception.

PAT: What?

GLENN: Stop. Stop.

PAT: What else could it be? I want one scientist who will tell you it's not human life. One -- I want one. Because I would love to have the argument with that scientist.

GLENN: What else could it be?

PAT: What could it be? What could it be?

STU: Never anything else.

GLENN: He says, well, it has a DNA map. So does a plant. Yes, of a plant.

If I took the DNA from a tree and I said is that a tree? You would look at the DNA coding and you would go, that's a tree.

STU: Right. Yeah, it's plant life. And this is human life.

GLENN: Right. When there's --

PAT: If you take a seed and plant it, like you take a seed of a tree and you plant it, well, I don't know that that's a tree. Prove that's a tree.

GLENN: Give me some time. It will sprout very soon. And if you want to look at it scientifically, you could take the DNA and say, yes, that is an oak tree.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: It's just a very young oak tree. It is the seed of an oak tree. But it is the oak tree. It won't grow into anything else.

STU: This starts after about three minutes of this, by the way. It goes on and on and on.

GLENN: By the way, Chris Cuomo, what are they looking for in space? What are they looking for in space? Life.

STU: The signs of it.

GLENN: The conditions that could create life. If we find bacteria on Mars, they will declare it life.

STU: They sure will. They sure will.

GLENN: So how do you say that bacteria on Mars is life, but the baby inside is not?

STU: Is not. Yeah. That's incomprehensible.

PAT: That's a good argument.

STU: And Rubio in a tough position. In a very hostile interview, sits there and defends this over and over again.

PAT: He's fine with it.

STU: He's fine with it. He believes it. He's confident. I got the sense listening to this interview and kind of what happened in the debate last night, that if he winds up losing because of this, he's totally fine with it. Fine.

GLENN: He is. I met with him on vacation, and we have to have him on the show and spend some time with him. I met with him on vacation. He is that guy.

JEFFY: Yep.

GLENN: He just believes what he believes, and he's willing to say what he believes. And if he loses, that's fine. I got that feeling from him.

JEFFY: That's what got him in office in Florida as a senator. And before that. But as a senator for sure.

GLENN: Yeah.

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.