Obama downplays importance of fighting ISIS

In a recent interview with NPR, President Obama responded to criticism he'd received for failing to adequately explain his strategy to defeat the Islamic State. Instead of offering a better explanation in the interview, he continued to underestimate the growing jihadist movement.

"This is not an organization that can destroy the United States," Obama told NPR.

Filling in for Glenn on radio Monday, Buck Sexton reacted to the president's comments.

"He doesn't seem to understand that our great concern is really about the global jihad and radical Islam," Buck said. "It's even broader in scope than just the Islamic State."

He continued.

"We're not saying that the only threat is ISIS, and we're not saying that ISIS alone could take us out," Buck said. "We're saying that this global jihad is a very real problem. One that the administration still seems absolutely set on downplaying at every turn."

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

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

BUCK: Obama is not done yet. He's still got a whole bunch of things that he's planning to accomplish/inflict on the American people depending on which side you find yourself on.

He has said repeatedly, he has indicated many times that he will go after guns at some capacity through executive orders in his last year. He's in Hawaii for now. I'm sure the carbon footprint of all the various and sundry jets and the helicopter and the everything that has to go out to Hawaii for him, it's very small. It's very small. He's keeping that carbon footprint small. Because the planet is going to melt unless we all start riding bicycles everywhere. But Obama still has things he wants to do and plans on doing. Including closing Gitmo, which we can get into in just a minute.

But in case you were wondering, he still is able to throw some help to Hillary in the process too.

But first he wants -- let's talk about what Obama has got going on himself before we talk about how he's helping Hillary. He gave an interview described by the media as a wide-ranging interview. I'm sure the tone was professorial. "We're going to do a lot of stuff. It's going to be great. We're going to have gun control. It's going to be amazing."

But he spoke on a whole range of things on an NPR interview. And for one, he hit all the topics you can imagine. For one of them, he went into his strategy, such as it is, for defeating the Islamic State. He conceded -- he conceded that he had received, quote, legitimate criticism for failing to adequately explain his strategy.

Oh, I get it. This is, by the way -- in the Obama playbook, this is one of the go-tos. I mean, this is a favorite -- this is a favorite play. This is sort of the handoff. Right up the middle, you know, you can expect this one. This is standard Obama 101. When people think he's doing a bad job at something, it's because they don't understand enough what he's doing.

Oh, okay. Well, I'm glad we've established that. It's not that he's failing. It's not that the plan to degrade and destroy ISIS is now clearly not what is happening.

It's that he hasn't explained to us enough of what he's doing. If we only knew more. If we were more knowledgeable, we would be more knowledgeable about how awesome Obama is. Don't you see?

That's what this is meant to tell us. That we have had in just recent weeks alone, a major at least ISIS inspired, if not ISIS directed terrorist attack in the US, in Paris, that these things happen and that the president then turns around and looks at us and says, "Don't worry. I got this whole thing under control."

He says ISIS is not an existential threat. He think that this is clever. This is in-depth analysis. He also said this in the interview. He doesn't seem to understand that our great concern is really about the global jihad and radical Islam. It's even broader in scope than just the Islamic State. The Islamic State, however, is the most direct and obvious manifestation of that ideological religious, political totalitarian movement.

We're not saying that the only threat is ISIS. And we're not saying that ISIS alone could take us out. We're saying that this global jihad is a very real problem. One that the administration still seems absolutely set on downplaying at every turn.

Featured Image: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to the media during his year end news conference in the Brady Briefing Room at the White House December 18, 2015 in Washington, DC. Later today, Obama will travel to San Bernardino, California to meet with families of the 14 victims of the recent mass shooting, before departing to Hawaii for Christmas vacation, returning January 3, 2016. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

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.