Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Haters Beware! The New Hate Speech Requires a Special Decoder

October 07, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

Do you treat people the same way, based on the content of their character? Well, stop it, because you're a hater.

"That indicates that you're not respecting their cultural differences, if you treat everyone the same. I mean, what an amazing journey from Martin Luther King and, you know, take people on the content of their character," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Friday on The Glenn Beck Program.

RELATED: Virtual Reality, Hate Speech and One ‘Shocking’ Experiment

But if you think you can comment about cultural differences, think again. That's hate speech, too.

What's the solution? Get your special decoder or sit down and shut up. Or, here's a whacky thought: Treat everyone as uniquely wonderful and respectfully exercise your First Amendment rights.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these First Amendment-protected questions:

• What is hate speech?

• If a hater hates in the woods is it still hate?

• Why is it hateful to treat people the same?

• If your ancestors were white abolitionists, are you still white privileged?

• What country are you from? (Oops, that's hate speech, sorry)

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

PAT: I treat all people the same.

STU: That's called -- that's basically hate speech. You're not supposed to say that.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Because that indicates -- we tried to figure some of these out. I don't even know. That indicates that you're not respecting their cultural differences, if you treat everyone the same. I mean, what a -- what an amazing journey from Martin Luther King and, you know, take people on the content of their character and not --

PAT: Where are you originally from? You can't ask somebody that. If they have a pronounced accent, you can't say, "Oh, hey, it's great to have you. Where you originally from?" No, that's offensive. Because you're making them feel like I guess they're other than American. Well, they are, right? They might be citizens now. But that's not where they originated. Is that -- how can that be wrong? I wouldn't care if someone said, "Where's your ancestry?" I would be okay telling them it's mostly Ireland. I'd be all right with that. That doesn't bother me.

STU: If someone asks you -- came up to you today and said, Pat, "Where are you originally from," you would say --

PAT: Montana.

STU: Montana. Right? There's an answer to that question. If it's a foreign country, fine. Or I would say New York. Jeffy would say hell.

PAT: Yeah, or south hell --

STU: Or Michigan. I know it was Michigan. Was it hell?

PAT: South hell?

STU: Southern hell.

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: That's fine.

STU: The point being, that's an honest question. It doesn't indicate any hatred toward --

PAT: Here's another thing you're not supposed to say: The same thing happens to me too.

JEFFY: Oh, boy.

STU: No. All of our experiences are different, Pat.

PAT: They're totally unique. That's never happened to anyone. All of my experiences are uniquely mine. I guess that's the issue there.

I know exactly how you feel.

STU: No, you don't. My experiences are my own!

PAT: Some of my best friends are white, black, Hispanic. None of those are acceptable.

STU: See that indicates that you're trying to excuse your own racial intolerance by just claiming you have non-descript friends of another race.

JEFFY: I don't see color. I'm colorblind.

STU: I mean, think about that. That is on the list. I'm colorblind. I don't see color.

PAT: Isn't that what Martin Luther King said?

STU: The plea of the biggest civil rights hero in the last 100 years is the thing you're not allowed to say at James Madison University.

PAT: You are so articulate.

STU: Now, that is obviously bad --

PAT: That is -- wow, you might as well have said the N-word.

(laughter)

STU: Now, again, that is not okay to say, unless you're Joe Biden, who said it about Barack Obama. Said, oh, he's the first articulate black candidate ever. It's a storybook, man. Clean.

PAT: Clean.

STU: Like he was shocked the man was clean.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: You're shocked a black man took a shower and the guy is vice president of the United States. But yet, freshmen at James Madison can't say it.

PAT: Here's one we tried to figure out the other day on Pat & Stu, saying to somebody who is in the LGBTQ community, what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, that's your business.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: Why is -- what? How?

STU: How is that hateful?

PAT: I don't know. Or offensive in any way.

STU: And I guess the -- to try formulate the outrage -- because this is the issue here. None of us are offended by this, and the audience isn't offended by these things because we don't wake up every day searching for life meaning in outrage. We don't sit here and say, "Oh, gosh, please, let me today discover something that will make me so upset, I can try to ruin somebody's business over it." That's not how we run our lives.

JEFFY: Right. But by saying that, you're saying that you disagree with what they do in their bedroom.

PAT: How? When you're saying, I don't care what you do.

JEFFY: Exactly.

STU: Exactly. You should care, and you should honor it and respect it.

PAT: Yes. Is that what I'm supposed -- I love what you do.

Hey, dude, I love what you do in your bedroom with your partner. I love that. That is awesome.

STU: And, of course, any --

PAT: May I participate?

STU: Yeah.

PAT: May I --

JEFFY: I don't think you have to go that far.

PAT: May I join the two of you? Because that seems like a great -- a really wonderful experience. Is that what it has to be now?

JEFFY: You have such a pretty face.

PAT: Oh, you can't say that either, Jeffy, as you know. Because you know, you can't say that --

STU: If you were gay and someone came up to you and said, "Hey, by the way, I really love what you guys are doing in your bedroom," wouldn't you be like -- that would be the weirdest thing in the world. Get out of my space, man.

(laughter)

JEFFY: Make you put the camera away. How do you know what I'm doing in my bedroom?

STU: Right. How do you know?

PAT: Why are you even talking about that?

STU: Why would you bring that up? That's so weird.

PAT: Now, some of these you can kind of figure out. You're not supposed to say to anybody, "I never owned slaves." Well, that's because it doesn't matter if you owned slaves or not. The problem universal, anyway, right? Isn't that what they're kind of saying with that one?

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: That that's not the issue whether you specifically owned slaves or whether your ancestors did. The problem exists whether you were part of it or not. And by your whiteness, you are part of it because of white privilege.

And I think you're denying white privilege if you say something like this. Is that right?

JEFFY: Okay. Okay.

STU: I guess. I guess.

JEFFY: Okay.

STU: I do not have my decoder --

PAT: Holy cow. It's unbelievable.

Featured Image: No Hate Speech movement logo

Presidential debate recap: The good, the bad and the ugly

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The second presidential debate was many things--some good, some bad, but one thing was made clear: this election is far from over.

If you were watching the debate with Glenn during the BlazeTV exclusive debate coverage, then you already know how the debate went: Kamala lied through her teeth and Trump faced a three-pronged attack from Harris and the two ABC moderators. This was not the debate performance we were hoping for, but it could have gone far worse. If you didn't get the chance to watch the debate or can't bring yourself to watch it again and are looking for a recap, we got you covered. Here are the good, the bad, and the ugly from the second presidential debate:

The Good

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Let's start with what went well.

While there was certainly room for improvement, Trump's performance wasn't terrible, especially compared to his performance in other debates. He showed restraint, kept himself from being too brash, and maintained the name-calling to a minimum. In comparison, Kamala Harris was struggling to maintain her composure. Harris was visibly emotional and continued to make obnoxious facial expressions, which included several infuriating eye-rolls and patronizing smirks.

The Bad

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite all that, the debate could have gone much better...

While Trump was able to keep his cool during the debate, he was not able to stay on track. Kamala kept making inflammatory comments meant to derail Trump, and every time, he took the bait. Trump spent far too long defending his career and other extraneous issues instead of discussing issues relevant to the American people and revealing Kamala's failures as Vice President.

Trump's biggest blunder during the debate was his failure to prevent Kamala from leaving that debate looking like a credible option as president. Kamala was fairly unknown to the American people and had remained that way on purpose, giving only one interview after Biden stepped down from the campaign. This is because every time Kamala opens her mouth, she typically makes a fool of herself. Trump needed to give Kamala more time to stick her foot in her mouth and to press Kamala on the Biden administration's failures over the past four years. Instead, he took her bait and let her run down the clock, and by the end of the debate, she left looking far more competent than she actually is.

The Ugly

If anything, the debate reminded us that this election is far from over, and it's more important now than ever for Trump to win.

The most noteworthy occurrence of the debate was the blatantly obvious bias of the ABC debate moderators against Trump. Many people have described the debate as a "three vs. one dogpile," with the moderators actively participating in debating Trump. If you didn't believe that the media was in the back pocket of the Democrats before, it's hard to deny it now. Kamala stood on stage and lied repeatedly with impunity knowing that the moderators and the mainstream media at large would cover for her.

The stakes have never been higher. With so many forces arrayed against Trump, it's clear to see that the Left cannot afford to let Trump win this November. The shape of America as we know it is on the line. Kamala represents the final push by the globalist movement to take root and assimilate America into the growing global hivemind.

The election is far from over. This is our sign to stand up and fight for our nation and our values and save America.

Glenn: Illegal aliens could swing the 2024 election, and it spells trouble for Trump

ELIZABETH RUIZ / Stringer | Getty Images

Either Congress must pass the SAVE Act, or states must protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Progressives rely on three main talking points about illegal aliens voting in our elections.

The first is one of cynical acceptance. They admit that illegal immigrants are already voting but argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it, suggesting that it’s just another factor we should expect in future elections. This position shows no respect for our electoral system or the rule of law and doesn’t warrant further attention.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches.

The second talking point targets the right. Progressives question why Republicans care, asking why they assume illegal immigrants voting would only benefit the other side. They suggest that some of these voters might also support the GOP.

On this point, the data says otherwise.

Across the board, immigrants vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, regardless of what state they’re in. The vast majority of migrants are coming up from South America, a region that is undergoing a current “left-wing” experiment by voting for far-left candidates practically across the board. Ninety-two percent of South America’s population favors the radical left, and they’re pouring over our border in record numbers — and, according to the data, they’re not changing their voting habits.

The third main talking point concedes that illegal immigrants are voting but not enough to make a significant dent in our elections — that their effect is minuscule.

That isn’t what the numbers show either.

Texas just audited its voter rolls and had to remove more than 1 million ineligible voters. The SAVE Act would mandate all states conduct such audits, but the left in Congress is currently trying to stop its passage. Dare I say that the left's pushback is because illegal immigration actually plays in Democrats' favor on Election Day?

Out of the 6,500 noncitizens removed from the voter rolls, nearly 2,000 had prior voting history, proving that illegal aliens are voting. But do the numbers matter, or are they “minuscule,” as the left claims? Let’s examine whether these illegal voting trends can make a dent in the states that matter the most on Election Day.

The corporate legacy media agree that Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will swing the election in November. By Election Day, an estimated 8 million illegal aliens will be living in the United States. Can these 8 million illegal immigrants change the course of the 2024 election? Let’s look at the election data from each of these seven swing states:

These are the numbers being sold to us as “insignificant” and “not enough to make a difference.” Arizona and Georgia were won in 2020 by a razor-thin margin of approximately 10,000 votes, and they have the most illegal immigrants — besides North Carolina — of all the swing states.

This election will be very similar to 2020. It’s like football — a game of inches. The progressives are importing an electorate to extend their ground by feet, yards, and often miles.

This is why Democrats in Congress oppose the SAVE Act, why the Justice Department has ignored cases of illegal voting in the past, and why the corporate left-wing media is gaslighting the entire country on its significance. This is a power play, and the entire Western world is under the same assault.

If things stay the status quo, these numbers prove the very real possibility of an election swing by illegal immigrants, and it will not favor our side of the aisle. Congress must pass the SAVE Act. If it fails, states must step up to protect the integrity of their elections — especially the seven swing states that could shift the outcome of 2024 by a hair’s breadth.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Hunter pleads GUILTY, but did he get a pass on these 3 GLARING crimes?

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Last week, Hunter Biden made the shocking decision to suddenly plead guilty to all nine charges of tax-related crimes after claiming innocence since 2018.

Hunter first tried an "Alford plead" in which a defendant maintains their innocence while accepting the sentencing, typically due to the overwhelming evidence against them. Hunter's Alford plead was not accepted after the prosecutors objected to the suggestion, and Hunter quickly pleaded guilty.

Glenn could not believe just how disrespectful this situation was to the justice system and the American people. After years of lying about his innocence, which only served to deepen the divide in our country, Hunter decided to change his tune at the last minute and admit his guilt. Moreover, many expect Joe Biden will swoop in after the election and bail his son out with a presidential pardon.

This isn't the first time Hunter's crimes have turned out to be more than just a "right-wing conspiracy theory," and, odds are, it won't be the last. Here are three crimes Hunter may or may not be guilty of:

Gun charges: Found guilty

This June, Hunter Biden was found guilty of three federal gun charges, which could possibly land him up to 25 years in prison. Hunter purchased a revolver in 2018 while addicted to crack, and lied to the gun dealer about his addiction. While Hunter could face up to 25 years in prison, it's unlikely to be the case as first-time offenders rarely receive the maximum sentence. That's assuming Joe even lets it go that far.

Tax evasion: Plead guilty

Last week, Hunter changed his plea to "guilty" after years of pleading innocent to federal tax evasion charges. Since 2018, Delaware attorneys have been working on Hunter's case, and just before the trial was set to begin, Hunter changed his plea. According to the investigation, Hunter owed upwards of $1.4 million in federal taxes that he avoided by writing them off as fraudulent business deductions. Instead, Hunter spent this money on strippers, escorts, luxury cars, hotels, and, undoubtedly, crack.

Joe's involvement with Hunter's foreign dealings: Yet to be proven

Despite repeated claims against it, there is ample evidence supporting the theory Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business dealings and even had a hand in them. This includes testimony from Devon Archer, one of Hunter's business partners, confirming Joe joined several business calls. Despite the mounting evidence Joe Biden was involved in Hunter's overseas business dealings and was using his influence to Hunter's benefit, the Bidens still maintain their innocence.

Why do we know so much about the Georgia shooter but NOTHING about Trump's shooter?

Jessica McGowan / Stringer | Getty Images

It's only been a few days since the horrific shooting at the Apalachee High School in Winder, Georgia, and the shooter, Colt Gray, and his father, Colin Gray, have already made their first court appearance. Over the last few days, more and more information has come out about the shooter and his family, including details of Colt's troubled childhood and history of mental health issues. The FBI said Colton had been on their radar.

This situation has Glenn fired up, asking, "Why do we have an FBI?" It seems like every time there is a mass shooting, the FBI unhelpfully admits the shooter was "on the radar," but what good does that do? While it is great we know everything about the Georgia shooter, including what he got for Christmas, why do we still know next to NOTHING about Trump's would-be assassin? Here are three things we know about the Georgia shooter that we stilldon't know about the Trump shooter:

Digital footprint

Just a few days after the shooting, authorities have already released many details of the Georgia shooter, Colt Gray's, digital footprint. This includes extensive conversations and photographs revolving around school shootings that were pulled from Gray's Discord account, a digital messaging platform.

Compared to this, the FBI claims Thomas Crooks, the shooter who almost assassinated Donald Trump, had little to no digital footprint, and outside of an ominous message sent by Crooks on Steam (an online video game platform), we know nothing about his online activities. Doesn't it seem strange that Crooks, a young adult in 2024 who owned a cell phone and a laptop left behind no digital trail of any relevance to his crime?

Home life

The FBI has painted a vivid image of what Colt Gray's home life was like, including his troubling relationship with his parents. They released information about his parents' tumultuous divorce, being evicted from his home, several interactions with law enforcement and CPS, and abuse. Investigators also found written documents of Colt's related to other school shootings, suggesting he had been thinking of this for some time before committing the atrocity.

In contrast, we still know next to nothing about Crooks's home life.

How he got the weapon

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Colt Gray was gifted the rifle he used in the shooting from his father for Christmas last year. We also know Colt's father is an avid hunter and would take Colt on hunting trips. In 2023, Colt was the subject of an investigation regarding a threat he made online to shoot up a school. During the interview, Colt stated he did not make the threat. Moreover, his father admitted to owning several firearms, but said Colt was not allowed full access to them. The investigation was later closed after the accusations could not be sustained.

In comparison, all we know is that Crooks stole his father's rifle and did not inform his parents of any part of his plan. We have no clue how Crooks acquired the rest of his equipment, which included nearly a hundred extra rounds of ammunition, a bullet-proof vest, and several homemade bombs. How did Crooks manage to acquire all of his equipment without the FBI taking notice?

It feels like the FBI is either incompetent or hiding important information from the American people. Or both.