Three Things You Need to Know - December 13, 2017

Roy Moore Only Has Himself to Blame

Doug Jones has 22,819 thank-you cards to send this Christmas.

Jones won Alabama’s special Senate election last night, becoming the first Democrat Senator from that state in 25 years.

Doug Jones won because there were over 22,000 Alabamians who used their votes to protest with write-in candidates. 22,000 people who were not willing to choose between the lesser of two evils. A better Republican candidate than Roy Moore would have received all those write-in votes and probably a lot more.

In his rambling victory speech, Doug Jones said, “This entire race has been about dignity and respect.” Uh, which race was he watching? Because the Alabama Senate race was only about Leigh Corfman, Beverly Young Nelson, and whether or not you believed their stories of abuse by Roy Moore 40 years ago.

Roy Moore beat himself. This election was a unique perfect storm of Moore’s questionable past, coupled with the #MeToo cultural momentum, which cast enough doubt about Moore that many voters were conflicted and he didn’t get the support he needed. This was a single-issue election in the end – the issue was Moore’s past, and he did not do nearly enough to convince voters of his innocence.

Even if none of the Moore allegations had ever surfaced, he was never a good candidate. The Republican Party is at a crossroads – are they going to continue supporting candidates endorsed by Steve Bannon, or aim much higher?

Doug Jones’ victory is a gift to the Republican Party, a blessing in disguise. The only question is whether the party will be smart enough to see it that way. Now they won’t have to deal with the added drama of whether or not to expel Roy Moore from the Senate. This is an opportunity to take stock and reset. To understand what went wrong (and why they should actually be thankful it did). To realize that they don’t want to be the party of Steve Bannon. To remember that character does matter.

North Korean Diplomacy

Have you ever wondered what high stakes diplomatic negotiations sound like? Here’s a live listen into the negotiating table between North Korea and the United States.

That’s some high-level stuff right there.

The current situation with North Korea is this: we are now two weeks past the biggest ICBM advancement the North has ever made. They now have the ability to hit the entire continental US with a nuclear bomb. You’d think the State Department would be in overdrive trying to talk Kim Jong Un down. Is that what’s going on? This is a quote from Rex Tillerson on his plan for engaging the North Koreans in diplomacy. He said:

“We can talk about the weather if you want. We can talk about whether it’s going to be a square table or a roundtable. Then we can begin to lay out a map, a road map, of what we might be willing to work towards.”

In other words, this is what diplomats between the two countries are currently talking about:

NOTHING IS BEING SAID. Tillerson’s statement is the diplomatic equivalent to a husband trying to get his wife to stop giving him the silent treatment... “Honey? Are you awake? You’re right and I was wrong. Talk to me now? Please?”

It seriously sounds like we are now willing to accept negotiations without preconditions. That means we’re also probably willing to accept a nuclear-armed North Korea, because any conversation going forward won’t include Kim Jong Un disarming his nukes.

I seriously hope there’s some uber angle or master plan at work here, because if this is all we’ve got up our sleeve - with North Korea arming and aiming ICBMs at our homeland - diplomatic crickets are not going to get the job done. And when diplomacy fails, that’s when the real nightmares begin.

The Word of the Year

Merriam-Webster has announced their 2017 Word of the Year: “Feminism.”

The dictionary defines feminism as “the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" and the "organized activity in support of women’s rights and interests."

But I’m not really sure that’s an accurate definition.

In fact, Merriam-Webster, I do not think you know what that word means.

Here’s how I would define feminism: “Leftist activism that is fueled by perpetuating the victimization of women.”

The feminist movement has never been concerned with actually achieving equality between the sexes. They are not even concerned with the equality of women. The activists who label themselves feminists don’t seem to care for all the baby girls who are aborted every year. They only seem to care about their mothers. Why? Because adult women can vote and babies cannot.

Like it or not, feminism herds women into a voting block that can be manipulated by the left. It treats women as a group to be conquered, not as unique individuals.

Feminism has always been a collective movement that needs women to believe they are inherent victims; That they are incapable of changing their lives and circumstances without politics and marching outside together against something or someone.

Women don’t need anyone to be empowered. They already have the power to determine their futures. And they certainly don’t need Feminism to fight their battles for them.

MORE 3 THINGS

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.

We've heard a lot about critical race theory lately, and for good reason: It's a racist ideology designed to corrupt our children and undermine our American values. But most of what we see are the results of a process that has been underway for decades. And that's not something the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, and even teachers unions want you to know. They're doing everything in their power to try and convince you that it's no big deal. They want to sweep everything under the rug and keep you in the dark. To fight it, we need to understand what fuels it.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck exposes the deep-seated Marxist origins of CRT and debunks the claims that it's just a harmless term for a school of legal scholarship. Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer joins to argue why we must ban critical race theory from our schools if we want to save a very divided nation.

Watch the full "Glenn TV" episode 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.

On the radio program Monday, Glenn Beck blasted the Democrats — and anyone else on the left — who have been so eager to open our southern U.S. border for the past several months, but also willing to turn a blind eye to the Cuban people in need of help today.

"While we are welcoming people from any country, all over the world, without any kind of information, and setting them into our country, putting them on American planes paid for by American taxpayers," Glenn began. "And our Coast Guard Cutters are turning these [Cuban] people away. Shame on you! Shame on you!"

Glenn said that he's "sick and tired" of hearing about "brave" leftist activists like Colin Kaepernick, who protest the America flag while wearing Che Guevara and Fidel Castro t-shirts. Meanwhile, the Cuban people are risking their lives by taking to the sea to escape their oppressive regime and come to America.

"Anybody who glorifies Che doesn't know their ass from their elbow. You can't call them a human rights activist. You're protesting the American flag, because you so deeply believe in the right to be free? And yet, you wear a Che T-shirt?" Glenn said.

Glenn went on to argue that, even though the left has "bastardized" the meaning of our country, he still believes America is the best nation on Earth. In fact, he'd give up his citizenship "in a heartbeat" if another country could prove to be better, more noble, and more free. But no other nation exists like ours, he said, which is why it's so imperative we fight for freedom here, in Cuba, and around the world.

Watch the video clip below to hear Glenn explain:

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.

There's a new "reality" spreading, and the mere act of questioning it has become incredibly dangerous, Wall Street Journal investigative journalist Abigail Shrier told Glenn on the most recent episode of "The Glenn Beck Podcast."

Shrier's book, "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters," exposes the radical gender activism that — like critical race theory — has overtaken our children's schools and culture. But even worse, she warned, it could end your parental rights for good.

Shrier made it clear she is by no means "anti-trans," but simply speaking up against the extremes of this new "reality" has made her enemy No. 1 to many activists. Her book has been bashed so hard by the Left that Target has stopped selling it twice, Amazon once banned ads for it, and the American Booksellers Association even called sending it to others "a serious, violent incident."

In the clip below, Shrier explained why she believes "there may be no hope for the public school system."

"You have teachers behaving like activists across the country who have no interest in actually teaching. They believe their job is to remake your child," she asserted. "We're seeing so much evidence of that, I think it's fair to say that it may be too deeply rooted in the ideology being taught in public school. I'm not sure that the public school system is redeemable at this point."

Watch the video clip below for more or find the full podcast with Abigail Shrier here:

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.