Rachel Dolezal: Cultural Appropriation Gone Wrong

February 27, 2017

WRITER

Evidently lying to your friends and co-workers comes with a price. Rachel Dolezal, former president of the NAACP Spokane chapter who resigned amid allegations that she lied about her racial identity, has come upon hard times.

"She's jobless, on food stamps and expects soon to be homeless," Co-host Stu Burguiere said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Its unclear why she just does not identify to have a home or identify to have a job."

Co-host Jeffy Fisher had an even better recommendation.

"She should just identify as a CEO. She would be making big money," Jeffy said.

Despite all the controversy and her white parents confirming their biological daughter's racial identity, Dolezal remains steadfast that she identifies as black.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

PAT: Is there some sad news for Rachel Dolezal? This is -- seems unfortunate.

JEFFY: Oh, no.

PAT: She is the -- you might remember, I think the Spokane NAACP chapter. She was the head of that. She was the head of it for some time. And then it was discovered, somehow, I guess somebody finally looked at her and said, "Wait a minute. You're not black." She's like, "Sure, yeah, I am. Oh, yeah, I'm way black."

And it turns out no. She has white parents. She herself is white. But she identified more as a black person, right?

STU: Yes.

PAT: And now I guess she's having a hard time getting a job.

STU: Yeah. She's jobless, on food stamps, and expects soon to be homeless. Is unclear why she just does not identify to have a home or identify to have a job.

JEFFY: Oh, no. Oh, no. She should just identify as a CEO. She would be making big money.

PAT: Big, big money.

STU: I don't know why she hasn't thought of that. But she still says she's not white. I thought that was interesting. She says, I do think I'm more complex label. Would be helpful. But we don't really have that vocabulary. Yeah, we don't have a word for what you have.

PAT: No.

STU: There's not a -- that's true. Again, this is on us. We have not developed the vocabulary to describe the thing she is. Which, by the way, we have developed that vocabulary. It was white. We nailed it.

(laughter)

STU: But she says --

PAT: She's more comfortable in a different -- in a different light. Right?

STU: Exactly. She says, I feel -- I love that word. I feel like the idea of being trans black, would be much more accurate than I'm white. Because you know I'm not white. Calling myself black feels more accurate than saying I'm white.

So -- so it feels --

JEFFY: I'm sorry. Go ahead. She's just hawking her book. That's why this is such a big deal.

STU: What do you mean?

JEFFY: Her experiences in her memoir, In Full Color. So she just wants us to buy her book.

PAT: I have absolutely no interest in her book.

JEFFY: I have zero interest in that. But it talks about her views on racial identity and her experiences in her memoir, In Full Color. I was listening to her with the food stamps and being back in the news again. And she's back in the news again because she wants us to buy her book.

STU: Well, she apparently needs it. Right?

JEFFY: Right. If she's on food stamps. She's unable to get a job. This is it.

STU: I love this. If Dolezal was exposed in 2015 -- exposed as what? She's white.

She was exposed in 2015 when a local television crew asked her a simple question: Are you African-American?

(laughter)

That must have been an interesting moment to go up and have to ask that question. But, of course, all pictures of her being white and blond from her youth came out. And that kind of blew up her little gig at the NAACP apparently.

PAT: It sure did.

STU: Which is kind of interesting. It's weird in that that is a natural extension of what we just talked about with Chris Cuomo.

JEFFY: It sure is.

STU: Why would this be wrong? Because you can do -- you can take medications -- I mean, we've talked about the old thing with Michael Jackson, which wasn't true. But that he wanted to bleach his skin white because he wanted to be white so bad, right? You can do things to change your outer appearance. But you don't even need to, really. She, I guess, took on some of the attributes as what she thought she was. But it was a lot different than her blond-haired youth. But you can say that Chris Cuomo was on TV. If you missed it last hour, on TV, on national television, saying that a girl with girl parts who wanted -- who identified as a boy -- calling her a girl is mythology. Mythology.

Now, here's a situation -- like, I can understand, we all want to accommodate people and do the best we can to be nice. I get that.

However, to insult every piece of knowledge we've ever had in human history. Part A equals gender A. To say that those things are true, even -- you know, we're talking before the surgery or anything else has happened. That's mythology now. Why wouldn't Rachel Dolezal's story connect? I don't think there's any reason why she isn't treated as respectfully as every single transgendered person that Chris Cuomo is backing here.

Why doesn't she get that same treatment? Why is she without a job? Why is she without a -- without a home, potentially?

PAT: Because she's white. I guess. Just because she's white. Right?

If she were -- but it's only a matter of time, right? It's only because she's the first one. And, again, in our -- in our sphere of awareness, right? She's the first story of a person saying, "I'm actually black, but I'm white."

Now, the guy who works at The Daily News says the same thing. What is his name? Shaun King says the same thing. There's a few of them. But she's one of the first ones that entered into our awareness. And because of that, people are saying, "Come on. Look. I want to accommodate people, but she's obviously white. She's obviously white. And she was trying to say she's black when she's not." That's okay to say today. Guess what, soon it won't be. Soon it won't be.

Soon, the same way you will have people on national television, like Chris Cuomo saying it's mythology to call her white.

That will happen. The only issue -- the only questionable aspect of that is whether Chris Cuomo will remain on television. That's the only questionable aspect of that. He very well may not have that gig at some point. But other than that, that discussion will occur. I mean, it has occurred with certain personalities already. And it will continue to happen. And it will become the thing you're not allowed to say, that Rachel Dolezal is white.

Look, I -- we're not at a point, any of us, that are like, "Oh, well -- I don't want to -- to understand, to accommodate, to do whatever you can." But it's like, we have to at some point have a truth that we can center on. Some foundation of just accuracy. She says -- it feels more accurate to say she's black. But she's not.

(laughter)

STU: I -- do these things need to be said?

PAT: I mean, it might feel more accurate to say that I'm 18 years old because that's how I feel in my head.

STU: Right. I'm young at heart.

PAT: But it's just not the case. Because I'm now in my mid-50s. So, yeah. Yeah.

As if. I mean, the mid-50s are so far in your rearview mirror.

JEFFY: I remember when I broke that mid-50 mark.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: How can you? It was such a long time ago.

PAT: Such a long time ago.

STU: And that will happen. We are there. This stuff is already occurring. To the point that -- you know, this is an interesting discussion. Like, if you had this point -- you're like, this is an interesting discussion. She identifies with many of the cultural things of being black or -- you know, he -- she identifies as many of the -- she feels like she wants to do boy -- things that are typically associated with boys. You know, she called herself a tomboy. She -- and, you know, this is an interesting thing that we're talking about. How does society deal with it? It's not that.

It's, you're a hatemonger, and you're dealing with mythology if you think that the gender she is born in is the gender that she has.

PAT: That's nuts.

STU: That's so far beyond -- it's not a discussion. It's a shutdown of a discussion. Incredible.

PAT: It's nuts. Yeah. And nobody, going back to the way I feel in my head -- because I tell my kids that all the time: I feel like I'm 18 still. In my head, that's kind of where I stopped, I think, was 18. So I identify as such.

But -- so if I -- if I acted as if I were 18 all the time, nobody would accept that. Well, I'm just 18. I identify as 18. What do you mean, why should I be more responsible than that? What are you talking about?

You can't hold me to the standards of a 55-year-old man with six grandkids. You can't do that. I identify as an 18-year-old.

Nobody --

STU: Nobody.

PAT: -- nobody would back me on that. None of these Democrats who are bending over backward for every other minority on this planet would say that's okay.

JEFFY: Well, there was the CEO, the guy that said he was a millennial, right? That was in his 50s. Not very long ago.

PAT: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

JEFFY: That they were all up in arms about.

PAT: And he kept saying he was 34 or something, and he was 55.

JEFFY: And they were all up in arms about him. How dare he.

PAT: Right. Right.

STU: And that's different from me who is actually a millennial. I do not identify --

PAT: According to one source who said a 41-year-old person --

STU: Yes, 1976 was the cutoff date. And I was born in February 1976, which makes me one of the first millennials. So I know better than everybody else.

PAT: Because don't most people say 80 -- 80 is the cutoff date for most?

STU: You know what, I don't know what most people. This is not about most people. It's how I identify, Pat.

PAT: Okay. And you want to be a millennial? Because, man, I would do everything I can to not identify with the millennials.

STU: No kidding.

(laughter)

But technically --

JEFFY: Why?

STU: -- by one source, I am.

However, no sources say a 55-year-old is a millennial. No sources say a white person is a black person.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: No.

STU: And, you know, I guess now a lot of sources do say -- you know, Chris Cuomo goes on in this interview that we played this last hour to say, "Well, the Department of Education says that if you identify as a girl, you're a girl. Or if you identify as a boy, as a boy."

PAT: Yeah, under Barack Obama, they said that. So what?

STU: And also, is the Department of Education, that's the --

PAT: Is it a scientific department now? No, it's a political department.

STU: Uh-huh.

PAT: So politically, you know, that is now accepted, I guess, in some circles. But that's not science. I love how they want to have it both ways. They're all science, until science doesn't agree with them. Then there's nothing to do with science. It's just a feeling. It's just a thought. It's just an attitude.

JEFFY: Don't pay attention to that.

PAT: It's the same thing on climate change. They have it both ways on every single issue.

JEFFY: Yep.

PAT: That would be pretty sweet, if we had it both ways on every issue.

STU: It's an exciting way to live.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And it would be fun. Right? It would be fun to be a liberal for a while, wouldn't it? Where you could just sit back and every -- you never have to worry about past statements. You never have to worry about what you said that disagrees completely with what you're saying right now. You just need to say what benefits you at that exact moment. I mean, that is what we saw throughout the Obama administration.

Whatever benefited him at that exact moment was the thing he supported. And that is a -- it's got to be nice.

PAT: It's a good standard.

STU: I mean, to just be able to forget your history and forget what you said in the past has got to be a nice thing to live under.

PAT: You have to have the media on your side to back you up and let you get away with that standard. But it's a nice standard, if you can have it.

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep

Rachel Dolezal: Cultural Appropriation Gone Wrong

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Picking up his torch

Two turning points, decades apart

A time for courage

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

The critical difference: Rights from the Creator, not the state

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?