Three Things You Need to Know - January 15, 2018

Why don't we know anything about the Vegas Shooting yet?

It’s been three and a half months since the worst mass shooting in modern American history. The shooter killed 58 people and wounded more than 500 others, and we still have no clue why he did it.

Why hasn’t a flood of information hit the public by now? In this day and age, when leaks to the media drop almost daily, and yet we still haven’t even seen security camera footage of the shooter inside the hotel. The only thing law enforcement seems sure of is that they can’t seem to nail down an accurate timeline for the attack. This is bar-none one of the strangest investigations in modern history.

New court documents were unsealed on Friday, and - rather than clearing anything up - we’re all left more confused than ever. The motive is still a mystery, and much of that has to do with the elaborate steps the shooter took to keep everything secret. The FBI said that the shooter planned the attack quote, “meticulously and took many methodical steps to avoid detection of his plot AND TO THWART THE EVENTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION THAT WOULD FOLLOW.”

Now why would he do that? The shooter used multiple email accounts to plan the attack, and not one but three cell phones were found in his hotel room. One of those phones was so well protected that the FBI never figured out how to unlock it. If there was no motive for this attack, if it was just a deranged man with gambling debt, who was he talking to via multiple email accounts and secret burner phones?

After this new dump of information, the explanation we’ve been given so far doesn’t fit the profile. Assassins that do these types of attacks never worry about the follow up investigation. To the contrary, they want their motives known. This suggests the shooter was protecting someone. Was it his girlfriend? The court documents revealed for the first time that she actually helped the gunman load some of his magazines. She also deleted her Facebook page right after the attack.

Did she know this attack was going to happen? Who else was involved? These answers may lie within that locked cell phone. Will we ever learn the truth?

The Desirability Bias

I’ve got some good news and bad news. Which do you want to hear first?

According to researchers at the University of London, it doesn’t really matter which one we hear first, because we’re more likely to believe the good news. It’s called “desirability bias.”

Desirability bias is when you consider information more credible because it pleases you. It helps explain the whole social media-fake news phenomenon – we believe something more when we like that thing and want it to be true.

Researchers at the University of London set up a study just before the 2016 presidential election. They surveyed 900 voters who supported either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. The voters disclosed which candidate they supported and predicted who they thought would win.

Researchers then randomly separated the voters into two groups. They gave the first group polling results that indicated Trump would win, and the second group results indicating Hillary would win. With this new information, participants were asked to update their prediction.

The result of the study was clear: desirability bias changes people’s minds. People believed the polling results that they were given only when the poll indicated their candidate would win.

So, if you were a Clinton supporter who thought Trump would win, and you received polling results suggesting Hillary would win, you were far more likely to change your prediction to Hillary winning. That is desirability bias – letting the outcome you actually want, affect your belief about something.

The lesson for politics is pretty clear, and it’s something that seems to be a lost art on both sides of the aisle – if you want to persuade people, you have to find a way to get them to want to agree with you. Ronald Reagan largely understood this art. He was called, “The Great Communicator” and he won 49 states in the 1984 election. We can’t fathom a candidate appealing across the aisle even half that much today.

We saw Obama supporters blinded by desirability bias for eight years, and now we’re seeing the same thing with Trump’s base. We must move beyond this concept of the presidency as the ultimate bully pulpit. That is not what the executive office was designed to be, and it won’t help heal our division.

Accepting DACA

The Department of Homeland Security has begun processing applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program aka DACA again.

And I believe it will continue to operate long after a deal on the program is reached later this week.

This shouldn’t be a huge surprise to anyone.

Why? Because both Republicans and Democrats want DACA.

And so does the President. Trump, after all, has a big heart, as he has boasted on more than one occasion.

Last year, he said, and I quote: “We’re going to show great heart. DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me…They are here illegally. They shouldn’t be very worried. I do have a big heart. We’re going to take care of everybody.”

Trump may have also said he would immediately terminate DACA, but that was sooo two years ago.

DACA is dangerous to both political parties because they are legislating based on emotion, when it should be based on the Constitution.

It’s not the children of illegal immigrants’ fault. They are innocent, but their parents are not. There needs to be consequences for breaking the law, or we don’t have laws anymore. Plain and simple.

When it comes down to it, DACA is Amnesty.

We have to make the decision to accept or reject amnesty.

Apparently, we accept it.

MORE 3 THINGS

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.

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.

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.