Should TheBlaze host their own GOP debate?

On radio Monday morning, Glenn and his co-hosts expressed their disappointment with the way the GOP presidential debates have been handled thus far.

Stu shared an innovative idea from presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who Tweeted, "I'll debate any one, any time, any place. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well?"

Instead of playing "gotcha" with candidates, Glenn called for fair treatment to allow the American people to hear what the candidates have to say and choose for themselves.

"If they're lying, the American people will sense it. And once they really hear the differences between the candidates, then they can make their choice," Glenn said.

In an open letter to Reince Priebus, Chairman of the National Republican Committee, Glenn proposed a new kind of debate, "in both substance and distribution." See the letter, complete with Glenn's handwritten notes below.

Listen to the full exchange from radio or read the transcript below.

Watch tonight's episode of the Glenn Beck Program on TheBlaze TV to hear more of what Glenn has to say about this. Tune in for FREE here.

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

STU: What you need, Glenn, is innovative thinking from candidates. Like, for example, this latest tweet from Carly Fiorina who tweets, "I'll debate anyone, any time, anyplace. And how about letting some conservative networks host debates as well, including TheBlaze."

PAT: Yes.

STU: She points out. That's an interesting question.

GLENN: That wouldn't suck.

STU: That's an -- I would like to see it. I mean, we are capable of doing a fair debate as much as I have my own personal biases. I think that would be an interesting debate. Look at the way you've treated these candidates. I think some of the best interviews that have happened --

GLENN: I hear from each of the candidates, each the candidates -- I would say almost all of them have said, fairest interview that they've had -- at least what they say to me when they're leaving.

Fairest interview that they've had. And it's because I'm not trying to play gotcha. I really, truly believe that when the American people see them for who they really are and they're allowed to actually speak their mind on what they really believe --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- if they're lying, the American people will sense it. And once they really hear the differences between the candidates, then they can make their choice. Why -- I just -- because I despise gotcha politics myself, where I've gone in interviews and said, we can really make a difference here, if somebody will just treat me fairly. I'm not asking you to treat me with kid gloves. Just treat me fairly and let me make my points in a fair manner because then we can really make -- then people can decide.

And so because I hate it so much, that's the way I've been trying to conduct these interviews. I'm not going to do a gotcha. I'm going to ask you tough questions, but I'm not going to do a gotcha.

STU: Yeah. It goes back to the Ben Carson clip you played, which I pretty much agree with, although with a slight modification. Because he said something like, "What we need are people that are interested in getting the candidates to be able to disseminate information -- or disseminate information about the candidates." And I don't know if that's exactly the focus I want. I don't want them just being people who can disseminate information about the candidates. I like tough questions. But it's someone who is interested in the answers. Not interested in promoting themselves. Not interested in getting some big moment that can go viral. We're talking about people who are actually interested in the differences between these people.

GLENN: The first thing that has to happen, you have to actually believe the country is in trouble. On our side. On the left, they don't necessarily think the country is in trouble. On our side, the majority think that our country is in real, deep trouble. So you have to -- more than self, your country love, the first thing.

And then actually ask the questions that are honest that reveal the candidate for who they really are. That's what has to happen.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Nobody has to have a shouting match with Donald Trump. Why have a shouting match with Donald Trump? Mr. Trump, can you tell me the difference between a constitutional and a progressive president? Yes or no? And what is that difference? Would you consider yourself a constitutional or a progressive Republican?

There's no gotcha in that at all. He'll have to define them. And by how he defines them and then how he describes himself, you'll know because you'll be able to compare. Is that true, or is that not true? There's no gotcha there. Because I don't think that there's -- you know, the Republicans are running away from progressivism, just as the Democrats ran away from socialism.

Well, people are wanting the truth. They just want the truth. They know the truth. They know that the Democrats and that Bernie Sanders is a socialist. They know that Hillary Clinton is a socialist. They know that.

So they're capable of handling the truth on who you really are. They want somebody to say who they really are. Even if they don't agree with it. They want them to say who they really are and what they really, truly believe.

And so, I mean, I think just putting the candidates in a place to where they're comfortable enough to where it's not hostile fire the whole time because --

PAT: And you're asking the right questions that conservatives care about. You got to ask the right questions. You're not asking them, "Well, how are you going to stop the evil richest 1 percent from earning another dollar?" That's not a Republican principle.

GLENN: And this is for us to decide. This isn't the general debate. This is for us to decide.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: When it comes to the general election debate, you kind of expect those questions, but there's no point in doing that now. You're trying to find out who is -- I think there is a point in looking at a candidate's weakness. You know, if you want to look at Ted Cruz and ask Ted Cruz about, "Well, you're too divisive in Washington." Or ask Donald Trump about his issues with, you know, things he's said in the past. Those are fair. But when you're talking about these income inequality questions about --

GLENN: Why do you hate women?

STU: Why do you hate women?

GLENN: I mean, that's just ridiculous. That's just ridiculous. That's a general election question. And, by the way, the -- the mainstream media should have a balance to it that it should have something like Carly suggested, TheBlaze to where when it comes to the mainstream media, to the general election, that the -- the Democrats' feet are put to the fire. If you're going to ask those questions about, why do you hate women? Well, I think I should be able to say, you know, look at the stats of Philadelphia. Look at the stats of Detroit. Look at the stats of St. Louis. Those are all democratically controlled since the 1960s. Your progressivism doesn't seem to be working. With the level of increase of homelessness and joblessness for African-Americans and Hispanics, how can you say this works to help the underprivileged and the poor?

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.