Those Standing on Principle Are in Good Company

And then there was a baker's dozen, give or take.

Only a handful of conservative media voices remain firm in their opposition to a Donald Trump presidency. While the others have caved, a core group continues to stand for principles.

RELATED: The Gift Ted Cruz Gave Us

"I am to the point of, 'bring it on!' We are in good company," Glenn said on his radio program Monday. "We are in good company."

Glenn made a list --- albeit small --- of those still fighting the good fight, along with himself and his co-hosts:

• Steve Deace

• Erick Erickson

• Mary Matalin

• Michael Medved

• Ben Shapiro

• Charles Sykes

• George Will

• Leon Wolf

• John Ziegler

"I know there are more," Glenn said. "And a good portion of this audience."

Under enormous scrutiny and pressure, these voices have held fast to the principles and ideals that founded the United States. They are, indeed, in good company:

Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. – John Adams, 1765

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. – James Madison, 1788

And in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech. – Benjamin Franklin, 1722

The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men. – Alexander Hamilton, 1787

They who have turned their attention to the affairs of men, must have perceived that there are tides in them; tides very irregular in their duration, strength, and direction, and seldom found to run twice exactly in the same manner or measure. – John Jay, 1788

Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder. – George Washington, 1779

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: It is a government of the worst possible people.

PAT: Oh, that -- I mean, that's exactly what we are.

(chuckling)

PAT: Dumb name. But it's exactly what we are.

GLENN: You get there because you vote for the lesser of two evils. And by the end, you have compromised yourself down so far, that you're just dealing with people.

You know, "Hmm, should I have Pol Pot or Mao? I don't know. I don't know." And so you get the worst possible people that rise to the top. Because the good people stay at home and they're like, "I don't have anything to do with it." I think that's where we are now. That's where we are. And good people get into it, and they compromise themselves because they say, "I have to be in here, and I have to be a part of it." And I don't think you do.

PAT: And the guys who they didn't like when they were on the outside are those same ones who were schmoozing them and saying, "Hey, look, you support my bill, and I'm going to get you the chairman of this committee." And they start to like this person. And, you know, we saw it happen with Orrin Hatch, with Ted Kennedy. I mean, Ted Kennedy groomed Orrin Hatch from the very beginning in the Senate, and look what happened there. I mean, the guy is not conservative. Started out that way, but they don't end up that way. Nobody does. How is it that we're always co-opted and we co-opt no one?

GLENN: We co-opt no one, ever. Ever. Because we have convinced ourselves that the only way to win is to play the game. We haven't -- maybe we should all go back and watch WarGames. What was the lesson of WarGames? The only way to win is to not play the game.

PAT: Not play the game.

STU: I mean, every Matthew Broaddrick movie has a lesson like that we can take through life.

GLENN: I think so. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, yeah.

I don't understand -- does anybody understand the calculus here?

STU: No. I mean, it -- certainly I don't understand it now.

PAT: To win.

STU: I mean, what the hell was the point of the convention speech? What the hell was the point of that?

PAT: Right. Why didn't you just do it then?

STU: Just do it then. And I think everyone at that point would have been like, "All right. Well, he said he was going to support the nominee."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Well, may I give you a hypothesis?

PAT: That should maybe be our first question to him, "Why didn't you do it then, if you were going to do it."

JEFFY: Yeah. Why'd you wait?

GLENN: Here's my hypothesis: Reince Priebus was on the warpath and said, "I will destroy -- I'll destroy anybody." There's enough of your big tent, gang. Don't talk to me about a big tent.

PAT: Oh, they don't want a big tent.

GLENN: They don't want a big tent. They are just as bad as GLAAD and PETA. I mean, I'm only -- I'm waiting for the buckets of blood to be splashed on me or anybody like me because you won't get in bed with the party. That is exactly -- this is the way the left does it. And we're doing the same thing. And Reince Priebus is the head of that march. And you will all march in line like little soldiers, or we'll destroy you.

And so here's what I think, I think that they were playing the game and playing the calculus as everybody was. And his numbers were starting to go down. Roger Ailes joins the Trump team. You saw another Roger Ailes move this weekend when Donald Trump said, "I'm going to put Gennifer Flowers in the front, for the debate tonight." What happens? The campaign retracts that and says, "Oh, I'm sorry. And we're not going to do that." That's Roger Ailes.

And the response was, "Maybe we'll put one of the bed -- the mothers of one of the dead soldiers from Benghazi in the front." That's Roger Ailes.

STU: So the first one is --

GLENN: Donald Trump is, "I'm going to go after Gennifer Flowers." Roger Ailes is, "Benghazi, dude. Benghazi." And so what happened?

Roger Ailes comes in, and the numbers start going up. And I think if the numbers were going down at this point, Reince Priebus would probably start to torpedo -- or probably just unplug and start worrying about the House and the Senate. But the pressure started to mount. Pure speculation: Pressure started to mount, and the G.O.P. saw, "This is within striking distance now. All hands on deck. And we'll destroy you if you don't play --

PAT: Wasn't that the same message though they gave before the convention?

GLENN: Yes, but I think the convention numbers -- I think they were doing that, and then the convention numbers started to slide, and they kind of backed off. And now the numbers are coming back up. They start putting the pressure back on.

STU: And this is the issue. This tells me nothing new about Reince Priebus. It tells me a lot new about Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz folding to that is not the guy I thought it was.

PAT: That's the problem.

GLENN: And here's the problem.

STU: Glenn, honestly, you think if Donald Trump was down 15 points right now, Ted Cruz would be endorsing him? No, absolutely not.

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Let's ask him that question. I mean, he'll say probably yes. But, I mean, if he was down 15 points right now and this was a complete disaster, there's no way he would be out there endorsing him.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: And that tells me way too much. Much more than I wanted to know. I wanted to live in the dark, and now unfortunately I live in the light.

GLENN: No. I'm actually glad I know.

STU: Of course I am. You know, I want to be the only one. I want all these guys out of here. I want to be the last man standing. I want Sasse on the phone. Get him on the phone! I want him folding too! I want Sasse! I want Lee! I want all of them to fold. I want all of you to fold. I want to be the only one. That's it.

GLENN: I do too. That's where I got last night. First -- my first reaction was, no one you can believe in. No one you can actually believe in. That was my first reaction. It would have been mass suicide for anyone who thought like I did on Friday when I hung up the phone.

I almost just -- and it wasn't out of anger. It wasn't out of anger. It was just --

PAT: Disappointment.

GLENN: It was so just disappointment and disconnect of like, "Nothing even matters anymore."

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: As I was talking to him, I almost just -- I found myself actually taking the phone and looking at it like, "Where is the off button," while he was talking. "Where do I just -- okay. End call, right there." I mean -- and it wasn't like, "I'm going to hang up in disgust." It was like, "Okay. I don't have time for anymore of this."

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: I mean, it was just complete disconnect. Nothing mattered. And so it wouldn't have been good. It wouldn't have been good for me to have been on the radio.

PAT: No.

GLENN: Because it was that -- but now, I am to the point of, bring it on.

We are in good company. We are in good company.

PAT: Who? With the four of us? It's very bad company.

GLENN: I made a list, and it's a very small list. It's a very small list. Ben Shapiro. Michael Medved. Charles Sykes. Erick Erickson. Steve Deace. George Will. Mary Matalin. Leon Wolf. John Ziegler. I know there are more.

PAT: Yes. Yes. Uh-huh. Yeah.

GLENN: I know there are, but I couldn't think of them.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And a good portion of this audience.

PAT: That's eight. Plus us, that's 12.

GLENN: A Gang of Eight.

JEFFY: So?

GLENN: Those are good people.

PAT: Yeah, they -- yeah.

GLENN: Those are good people.

PAT: Yeah. And that article that Erick Erickson wrote last week was one of the best I've seen --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. You should read -- I read Steve Deace's book. What is it?

JEFFY: Nefarious.

GLENN: Nefarious. Oh, my gosh, I wrote to him last night --

PAT: He's good. Really good.

GLENN: That is C.S. Lewis. That is C.S. Lewis. That is brilliant. Why -- why I'm not an up-and-coming struggling talk show host and he's not the guy with the titan title, I don't know. He is so much smarter than I am and really brilliant. That is a brilliantly written book.

PAT: Billions of people can say that.

GLENN: I know that. I know that. I know that.

Featured Image: Founding Fathers via Flickr

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.