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

Rachel Dolezal: Cultural Appropriation Gone Wrong

February 27, 2017
Staff

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.

Can fear win the vote? Democrats have a dangerous strategy to demonize Trump.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

The Democratic Party’s nominee is deliberately spreading false, fear-driven narratives to turn her base against Donald Trump, regardless of the consequences.

Have you noticed how Kamala Harris and her allies in the corporate left-wing media have become bolder in labeling Trump a “fascist”? A recent New York Times article revealed that Democrats have shed their reluctance to use the term. In fact, it has become their rallying cry as Election Day approaches.

What’s the real goal here? According to John Daniel Davidson at the Federalist, Harris and her supporters are using this rhetoric to energize their base — and more disturbingly, to prepare them for violence if Trump wins. The fearmongering isn’t just about driving people to the polls; it’s about creating an atmosphere of rage and chaos.

Let’s show the Democrats that our republic doesn’t bend to fear and certainly doesn’t bend to those who twist the truth for political gain.

Harris is deliberately spreading false, fear-driven narratives to turn her base against Trump, regardless of the consequences. This is the same Kamala Harris who, during the George Floyd riots in 2020, encouraged bailing out rioters and urged the violence to continue both before and after the election.

For example, Harris has claimed that Trump will use the Department of Justice as a weapon against his political enemies if he returns to office. But let’s pause for a second: Who is using the Justice Department as a political tool right now? Harris’ own administration, led by Joe Biden, has weaponized federal agencies against Trump and conservatives for years.

Harris also recently entertained the idea that Trump would round up people who “don’t look white” and throw them into camps. During an interview with Charlamagne tha God, a caller suggested this scenario. Instead of refuting the caller’s paranoia, Harris nodded and said, “You have hit on a really important point.”

This kind of divisive rhetoric fuels fear and division in our country. Let’s not forget: Trump was president for four years, and there were no camps, roundups, or authoritarian crackdowns on dissenters. Leftists claim Trump and his supporters spread conspiracy theories, but they are the ones pushing baseless and dangerous claims.

While Democrats claim to defend democracy, they are increasingly aligning with authoritarianism. For example, the EPA funneled billions of dollars to left-wing organizations, including one tied to Stacey Abrams, for “voter mobilization” efforts. This funding came through the Inflation Reduction Act — a taxpayer-funded omnibus bill. Imagine the outrage if Republicans in Congress gave billions of taxpayer dollars to right-wing groups. The media would be in an uproar, and there would be protests at the White House gates. But because it’s Democrats doing it, the mainstream media turns a blind eye. These are the warning signs of an authoritarian regime.

This is why it’s more critical than ever for Americans to see through the left’s manipulation. Trump’s not the fascist here — he’s a threat to the left's power. The real danger lies in the left’s escalating rhetoric, which is designed to incite chaos if things don’t go its way. And let me be clear: That’s exactly what leftists are preparing for.

Don’t let them succeed.

The best way to counter their lies is by getting out to vote and encouraging others to do the same. If every single one of us does this, we won’t let the fearmongering and lies being peddled by Harris and the Democrats succeed. Let’s show them that our republic doesn’t bend to fear and certainly doesn’t bend to those who twist the truth for political gain.

'Get involved': Here's how YOU can join Glenn on election night

America is currently standing at a fork in the road. Which path we take will determine our fate as a nation.

One path is “we try something entirely new,” as in “not the Constitution,” and the other path is “we go back towards the Constitution,” says Glenn Beck.

The stakes for this decision are higher than they’ve ever been.

“We're deciding this year whether or not our kids are going to grow up in a country that gives them the opportunity to be themselves and to move forward and chart their own course, or we're going to continue to live in a place where we're not sure if our kids are going to have a better life than we did,” Glenn warns.

Regardless of who you vote for, Glenn says that one thing applies to everyone: “You’ve got to get involved this year,” which includes voting.

Election Day is rapidly approaching, and it will undoubtedly be a night that goes down in history, which is why BlazeTV will be broadcasting it live.

“We’d love to share it with you,” says Glenn.

Go to BlazeElection.com for exclusive access to our election night broadcasting. Your BlazeTV+ subscription also gives you access to all BlazeTV content as well as Blaze News.

“Sign up and be a part of the family as we go through this together,” invites Glenn.

Get $40 off your first year of BlazeTV+ with code ELECTION.

TOP THREE craziest leftist reactions to Trump's McDonald's visit

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

Over the weekend, President Trump visited a McDonald's in Bucks County, Pennsylvania to serve up some french fries to hungry supporters.

MAGA fans from across the country came to celebrate and support Trump, quickly swamping the small town with a tide of Trump merch. With a roaring crowd outside, Trump cooked up some crispy fries and served them to a small selection of supporters through the drive-thru window, creating a light-hearted, fun moment— a pleasant break from the turbulent election cycle.

Naturally, the Left quickly swooped in to rain on Trump's parade. From unsubstantiated fact-checks to overused insults, here are the craziest reactions to Trump's McDonald's trip:

Fact check on Donald Trump's claims about Kamala Harris

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

While working his brief 15-minute shift, Donald Trump quipped that he's now worked at McDonald's longer than Kamala Harris, referencing the Vice President's unsubstantiated claim that she worked at McDonald's one summer during college. McDonald's further substantiated Trump's claim by indicating that there are no existing records of Harris's employment, though they admit that records from the pre-digital age may not have survived to the present day.

Despite the lack of evidence, left-wing media outlets, such as the Washington Post, were quick to defend the Vice President. Their argument essentially put Trump's word against Harris's, suggesting that Trump was deliberately lying to defame the Vice President, while simultaneously treating Harris as a more credible source.

Pointing out the obvious fact that this was a political stunt

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

In what is likely the least informative journalistic piece of the century, MSNBC made the "shocking discovery" that Donald Trump didn't actually work at McDonald's and that the entire event was for his campaign. It's unclear what detail gave this away to the "ever-vigilant" reporters at MSNBC. Maybe it was the fact that McDonald's was closed for the event, or the lack of employees within the restaurant, or possibly it was the crowd of cheering fans outside. Thank you captain obvious, the event was a carefully coordinated and secure political event. The former President who has had several assassination attempts on his life did notwork in an unsecured restaurant, dealing with countless unknown people.

Truly "top-notch" reporting by MSNBC.

Calling Trump supporters "weird"... Again.

LOGAN CYRUS / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times had to really scrape the bottom of the barrel to come up with something to paint Trump's fast food fiesta in a negative light. Instead of attacking Trump, they went after his supporters who lined the street to cheer on their favorite presidential nominee. They went so far as to describe the event as a violent riot full of unhinged and uneducated fanatics. The New York Times even quoted a pro-Harris protester who showed up to the event and suggested that "Jan. 6 was maybe a trial run ... and now they’re a lot more organized — and a lot angrier.” The insults didn't stop there. They dredged up the archaic and cringeworthy Tim Walz original calling the Trump supporters "weird." This "zinger" doesn't have the punch the New York Times wanted it to have, and came across as a sad attempt to bring Trump down in one of his high points in his campaign.

RIGGED: Kamala Harris attempts to sway Fox interview in her favor, STILL falls short

Paul Morigi / Contributor | Getty Images

The election is mere weeks away and Kamala Harris just had her first adversarial interview since she began campaigning.

Last week, Harris sat down with Fox News journalist Bret Baier for an interview plagued with difficulties from the beginning. As Glenn recently pointed out, it seemed like Harris had done her best to ensure the interview was intentionally rigged against Baier. Despite being in front of Baier's diverse audience, she did not seem too interested in taking the opportunity to sell herself to a new demographic. Instead, Glenn hypothesized she was just after a quick soundbite to pander to her faltering core supporters.

However, the interview blew up in Kamala's face, and the American people took notice. Here's a rundown of Kamala's first Fox interview:

Rigged Interview

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Harris and her team did everything possible to throw Bret Baier off his game and derail the interview in her favor. It started when Harris's team informed Fox that the interview, which was originally supposed to be an hour, would be cut in half. This left Baier scrambling to reformat his interview to better fit the new time requirement. Then Harris arrived at the interview ten minutes late, further shorting the interview.

The purpose behind Harris's tardiness became apparent during the interview. Every time Baier asked a question, Harris would launch into a lengthy word salad. Baier was forced to interject just so he was able to ask more than a couple of questions. Harris even pushed back, calling out Baier's interruptions, which of course, just wasted more time. Clearly, Harris or her staff realized that she could not sustain a hostile interview for any extended period, which is why Harris tried to filibuster away as much of the interview as possible.

When the brief interview was nearing the end of its allotted time, Harris's staff began signaling to Baier to end the interview. Despite the change in plans and late arrival, her staff was determined to end the interview as quickly as possible.

Harris's Agenda

CHRISTIAN MONTERROSA / Contributor | Getty Images

From the beginning of the interview, Harris was hostile. She was immediately adversarial and would spin every question into a criticism of Trump, no matter how pointed Baier's question was. Several times Harris had emotional outbursts, spewing classic anti-Trump rhetoric, regardless of its relevance to the question asked. Glenn pointed out that this was the reason Harris took this interview. Recently, many of her core supporters have been faltering as her sudden burst of televised appearances has revealed her paper-thin platform. She took this interview to get a good clip of her passionately bashing Trump on Fox News. This would bolster her core demographic, which she desperately needs.

Harris's Fumbles

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite her best efforts to sway the interview in her favor, Baier still managed to pin Harris several times. Harris kept dodging tough questions Baier threw her way with the same tactic: she would promise to "follow the law" then deflect the question back on Trump. One of the more memorable instances of Harris's evasion strategy was when she was questioned if she supported prison inmates having access to taxpayer-funded transgender surgery. Harris insisted she would "follow the law" and then explained that Trump had followed the same law while he was in office. This response was, in essence, a non-answer. Harris was ignoring the obvious fact that as President, she would influence what the law would be and how it is enforced.

Harris's other major blunder occurred after Baier asked her how her presidency would differ from Biden's and how she would "turn the page" on our current situation. In classic Harris fashion, she immediately deflects on Trump, framing our current situation as somehow a byproduct of Trump simply existing within the political sphere. This convoluted web she spun was so twisted that Harris herself lost track of what she was saying gave up, telling Baier, "You know what I'm talking about." Baier admitted he was just as lost as she was, and she simply went back to attacking Trump.