Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Events
Restoring the Covenant
More
AboutBooksCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2020 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Three Things You Need to Know - December 14, 2017

December 14, 2017
 Jon Boldt

Writer

The Justice System Has Been Politicized

Shady meetings in high-level offices, off the books burner phones to hide communications, and whispers of a coup. These plot lines sound like they’re ripped straight out of a late night ID channel espionage series: “Case Files of the KGB”... or something like that. In reality, everything I just described was going inside the hallowed halls of the FBI.

It was reported last week that the former second-in-command of counterintelligence at the FBI had been relieved from the Muller investigation due to a series of anti-Trump text messages. At first - to be honest - this seemed kind of eye roll worthy. I mean, who hasn’t sent a few ant-Trump text messages? Even if you’re fully in the President’s corner - come on - I KNOW you’ve sent at least ONE text saying, “crap I wish he wouldn’t have tweeted that.” That’s really all I was expecting to see here.

On Tuesday night, 375 of the 10,000 text messages were released to the press. Many of them, as expected, were just kind of stupid. Sure there’s a clear disdain for Trump and admiration for Hillary Clinton, but there’s a big difference in having a political opinion versus showing bias in an investigation. That was the vibe Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was giving to Congress yesterday and that’s primarily how the mainstream media is reporting it.

So that’s that… well, not quite. I kept scanning through the meaningless texts until I came across this one. It says quote:

“So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can’t be traced…”

Ok, that sounded a little bad. What could they possibly be discussing about Hillary that requires them to hide their communications? Maybe the fact that this FBI agent was the one that doctored Comey’s Clinton statement to help her avoid indictment? I mean I’m just guessing here… let’s read on.

Ok, there’s an “Eff Trump”... yadda yadda yadda… “Congrats on a woman nominated for President”... wait, what’s this:

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office - that there’s no way Trump gets elected - but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’ like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”

Is that what I think it is, because it sounds an awful lot like the second-in-command of counterintelligence - who was working on both the Clinton investigation AND the Trump/Russia investigation - was making plans with a colleague to undermine Donald Trump. Oh yeah, and the office referenced in the text - “Andy’s” - was likely Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s.

I’m sorry, but this isn’t a case of a little harmless “political preference”, this sounds like bias with the intent to conspire against a then-presidential candidate. How far did this plot go? At this point we need a Special Counsel… to investigate the Special Counsel.

Rotten Apples in the Movie Biz

Have you heard of the new movie review website called Rotten Apples?

Not Rotten Tomatoes – that’s the one people use to try to convince each other to see a movie. “But honey, it got 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. It must be really good.”

Rotten Apples isn’t like that. It really boils things down for the movie, or TV show consumer. You type in any title and it gives you an instant rating, either “Fresh Apples” or “Rotten Apples.”

It’s a website that really addresses current needs. It’s very of-the-moment, you might even say it’s very #MeToo… because that is exactly what inspired it.

You see, Rotten Apples is a brand-new website that tells you if anyone involved in a movie or show has been accused of sexual misconduct. Notice I said accused of. It’s not a criminal database. And no, I’m not making this up.

If you type in a movie title and no one’s been accused of anything, the page reads “Fresh Apples – This movie has no known affiliation to anyone with allegations of sexual misconduct against them.”

If you type in a show like House of Cards, however, the page reads “Rotten Apples” followed by the name of the person accused. If you click on the name, it links to an article from another media source about the allegations against that person.

The team of four – two males, two females – who created the site, say it’s not meant to incite boycotts of movies or shows, but to help people make “ethical media consumption decisions.”

Wow. This site just launched on Tuesday. It’s so new, I’m not even sure what to think of it yet. Is this another example of the internet keeping an industry honest – like travel or restaurant review sites? Could something like this actually help keep Hollywood predators at bay?

Or, is this website a one-way ticket to libel town since it’s based on accusations?

Regardless, it’s kind of a suspenseful game, to type in your favorite movies and shows, cross your fingers, and hope your childhood isn’t ruined by finding out your hero is a total creep. The results can be surprising. Or not.

Whatever you do, just don’t type in Home Alone 2. Under any circumstances. Or The Little Rascals. Trust me. Just don’t type those in.

Harvey Weinstein Was Salma Hayek's #MeToo Monster

“I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.”

Those are the cruel words Harvey Weinstein reportedly said to Salma Hayek.

The actress is the latest and one of the most high-profile women to share her frightening experience with Weinstein.

In a shocking essay published by the New York Times, Hayek detailed her hellish encounters with the disgraced producer.

She met Weinstein when she approached his company Miramax to help finance and distribute her film, Frida.

He agreed, but his involvement came with a hefty price: her mental and physical wellbeing.

She claims that Weinstein repeatedly stalked her and asked for sexual favors.

When she declined his advances in private, he made a demand for a sex scene in the film with her co-star, Ashley Judd, who was also harassed by Weinstein. An emotionally battered Hayek begrudgingly agreed because the future of the film was at stake.

Frida went on to win Two Academy Awards.

But Hayek clearly lost when she partnered with Weinstein. After reading her essay, it’s clear he made the most important experience of her career a living hell.

Salma Hayek will not be the last person to add to the mountain of allegations against Weinstein, but her account is noteworthy because it draws the line between Weinstein and the other men accused of sexual misconduct. It’s clear Weinstein is in a league of his own.

MORE 3 THINGS

Critical race theory: The revolution of constant whining

Flickr/GaryStevens

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.

Will we EVER see justice in the FBI, Trump, Russia investigation?

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.

Glenn Beck: Rand Paul was RIGHT to say Dr. Fauci LIED about gain-of-function

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.