Glenn Beck: Where's the bailout $$$?

United States Senator James Inhofe

Glenn: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, Hello, you sick, twisted freak. Welcome to the program. Boy, oh boy, oh boy. There is a lot going on, a lot going on this weekend. Hey, everybody got together and came up with some new global rules to watch over you and how you spend your money and how we invest. That's fantastic. I'm not sure how that works, you know, with that pesky Constitution thing, but oh well. The world leaders met and, yet, more power is being taken by this government, more power is being given, more money is being printed, yet, there's no accountability. For all the people, the voices in Washington are saying, like Barney Frank, "Geez, guys, what I would like to know is where all this accountability? We need somebody watching over all the banks." Barney, wasn't that you? I would rather have Barney the dinosaur. No, no. I would rather have Barney Rubble, and he screwed up everything. I'd rather have Barney Rubble -- "Gee, I don't know, Fred" -- watching over absolutely everything in the banks over Barney Frank. No one is asking -- no, no, no. I take that back.

Senator Inhofe is with us. He's one guy who's been saying, Hey, gee, where's all the money going that you said was going over here to pay Pete and you didn't buy anything from Pete? What kind of answers are you getting, Senator?

Inhofe: You might remember, Glenn Beck, when I voted against this being in October 1st, there was a reason for it. We tried to be very objective and look at this thing and what they had said in the middle of September, we had a conference call from Paulson and all Republicans are supposed to be on it. I think there were about six of us and I asked questions, you know, simple questions like, "All right. You want this money to buy troubled assets. Now, how do you qualify? What's the criteria of a troubled asset?" "Well, I don't know." "Well, what's the criteria for a company that has these assets so we'll know what institutions we're going to be baling out?" "Well, we'll have those answers." This is on a Friday. Then, of course, two weeks later the answers still weren't there and they went ahead and passed this thing.

I can tell you, I think you're being overly generous, because I've heard some of your comments. Have you ever in your career, in your lifetime, Glenn, seen an unelected bureaucrat have total control --

Glenn: No.

Inhofe: -- with no oversight over a large amount of money? Now, when you talk about $700 billion, I would like to put it in perspective that I can understand. We have 139 million families in America, like the ones listening to us right now, who file income tax returns. If do you the math, that's $5,000 a family. So, you've got to kind of put it in context where we understand it.

So, here we are now. He did not do with it what he said he would do. Maybe that's good, but the point is he was without any type of oversight, any type of restrictions, just put it where you want to. A lot of this, I might mention, $10 billion of it, went to Goldman Sachs. That was his old company.

Glenn: Senator, I asked Senator Orrin Hatch this and Joe Lieberman. Before I give you their answer, let me ask you this question: Do you believe our Constitution is hanging by a thread?

Inhofe: Well, certainly it's very clear what the responsibilities are in terms of Congress, in terms of the executive branch and the juvenile branch. There is not a bureaucratic branch in our Constitution. And so I think, you know, the answer is "yes."

Glenn: Gang, if you're keeping score at home, just -- there's three senators down that I have asked that question to and all three have answered the same way, "Yes, it is."

Senator, now we're talking about baling GM out. Since when did we -- and it's not just GM. It's all the big three. Since when did we stop believing in bankruptcy? You go bankrupt. You restructure. You restart. You move on. When did we --

Inhofe: You know, let me suggest something here, Glenn. It's a little different spin on this, but on the whole idea on the manufacturers, the -- or anybody else who's standing in line now, Wait a minute, they got bailed out. I can get bailed out, too. I'm introducing at noon today -- that's when we -- eastern time. That's when they open. I have it all drafted and ready to go. It's legislation that will do two things. First of all, it will freeze the amount of money that Paulson has been spending so he can't spend any more. We don't know how much that is. Now, that's quite an indictment right there, not even knowing what it's already been spent on. And, secondly, there is a second $350 billion that will be automatic if we don't do something. This states that we reject the second $350 billion. So, what I'm saying is you've got to stop the bleeding.

You know, what we're doing right now, they're negotiating, they're talking about, Well, we're going to have to have inspectors in there talking about putting someone in and getting the President to nominate then, then we have to go through the confirmation, you know, all the money will be spent by the time this guy is confirmed and we have enough people there. All we have to do is give them the authority to do it. Right now we've got an inspector general, Eric Thorson. He's there right now. He's on the job. If we gave him the authority, at least we would have somebody doing it, but instead of that, let's stop the bleeding, stop them from spending any more money, let's withhold the other $350 billion. Hopefully it won't have to be used at all. And then let's segregate the whole idea on the auto industry from what is happening right now with what used to be or started out to be $700 billion because if they -- if Congress wants to do something for the auto industry, they should have to admit that they're going to take that out of the general fund, they're going to increase our deficit by that amount and/or debt, I might add, and let that stand on its own, but let's in the meantime stop all the spending that came with this $700 billion, if there's anything left of the first 350 billion.

Glenn: Senator, can you please explain to me -- and it's not just the Republicans -- I mean not just the Democrats. It's the Republicans, as well. Can you please explain to me at any level of satisfaction to sanity how Barack Obama could say this weekend -- and I don't want to throw Barack Obama under the bus, because it was George Bush before -- how we can say we don't have to worry about the deficit over the next couple of years; we have to spend whatever it takes? Can you please explain to me, when the globe is in a financial crisis as bad, if not worse than we are, when they're the ones financing our debt, how incurring obscene amounts of debt, unlike this country has ever, ever seen before, how you're going to get back to my place liveable?

Inhofe: Well, Glenn, I'm glad he said it. You know, at least we all knew it, anyway, that -- and it's very honest for him to come out and say, It really doesn't matter, we're not worried about debt anymore, and all the promises he's made and what he's talking about and you've heard the testimonials of the people that are going to quit their jobs, they don't have to work anymore, they have health care, they have all the benefits that are out there. Well, at least now he's saying this isn't important anymore. It's not -- it's something that we've known about him for a long time.

You know, we are looking at a real critical time and now is the time to try to stop what we're in the middle of. And all the time this was happening, here we are in Washington, we've got the Senate finance committee fighting with the Senate banking committee. I have to say back on October 1st and 3rd is when the vote took place, overwhelming vote to approve this $700 billion bailout, it's kind of the black bird theory. Everybody in Washington, they all get behind closed doors and say, Look. If we all support this, who's going to criticize us? And I've seen this happen before and this is -- I think this one's come back to haunt them.

Glenn: Senator, how long before we don't recognize our country anymore because of what's coming our way? This is a tsunami that is going to hit us in -- in 12 months, between the spending -- we're now talking an estimated $1 trillion budget deficit next year, plus the $5 trillion of added debt that we have just now guaranteed, plus anything else that everybody wants to do, plus the economy, they're saying now that the unemployment rate in the next 12 months will probably be between 7.5 and 8 percent unemployment, which is another blow to the -- plus all of the defaults on the credit cards and auto loans. It's a tsunami. What will it look like in a year? How much time do we have to stop something?

Inhofe: Well, it's a new mental attitude as to what government is there fr and this is what bothers me. Look at the people who have already lined up behind those who have been recipients of some, what, $125 billion. You have -- they say, well, that's just going to be the financial industry. Oh, fine. That includes insurance companies. Then everyone is saying why we were discriminated against? Why aren't we getting it? And so everybody is in line now. They're all assuming the government's going to be able to take care of it. But look at the problems we have right now. We are still -- in defense, I would say, of George W. Bush, yeah, he spent too much, but he inherited a recession. For every 1 percent drop in economic activity, that translates into about $45 billion. Then, he inherited a military that had been decimated by Clinton.

Glenn: Hang on. Hang on. Senator, this same thing is going to be said in two to four to eight years about Barack Obama, if we last that long. There's going to be somebody else who will say, Yeah, but he inherited all of that from George Bush. It doesn't matter. What matters is your values. Did you sell out your values? The answer to that with George W. Bush is "yes." It's called prescription drugs. It's called never vetoing a bloated spending bill. So, I don't want to rehash the past, but I also don't want to surround the past in sunshine and lollipops.

Inhofe: I don't want to do that, either. I'm just saying to you, Glenn, there is another huge problem we haven't talked about and, that is, he didn't get a chance. He did the best to try to rebuild the military but couldn't do it and prosecute a war at the same time. We have to make up for what we lost in the 1990's and I could assure you Barack Obama could care less as to what is going to happen to the size and the salvation of our defense system.

Now, I'm a little prejudiced because I watched this. I was on the Senate floor all during the Nineties complaining about what Clinton was doing to the military, but there are some things that government's supposed to be doing. Government's supposed to be doing defending America, supposed to be building infrastructure to keep our traffic moving and all these things, but after that is where you have to really watch it and that's where we've got a serious problem coming up in this next administration. I think it could very well precipitate a great landslide victory for the Republicans in the congressional elections of 2010.

Glenn: I've been talking for five years about something I call the perfect storm and I said all of these things, financial problems, wars, you know, enemies within, enemies without, all of these things, every single one of these things we have handled and this country can deal with. However, we have never dealt with all of them at the same time and if two or three of them spiral out of control, I've been warning for five years, guys, we're in a different world. It is not the same. I kept looking at the news this weekend and somebody would say to me, Glenn, what would happen if such-and-such? What would happen if this happened? And I keep thinking to myself Archduke Ferdinand. We are sitting on a tinder box and a spark or a match will make us burn like California and it's not just us. It's the whole world. It is on the edge. Agree or disagree?

Inhofe: Oh, I agree. I agree. And I think for a minute forget about the rest of the world and just think about the problems that we're going to have in this country because it's now total control. At least we had some effort there before. I don't see any effort at all to curb the coming disaster that you described in terms of spending. You know, I gave a speech to this large conservative group, this national group on Saturday, and I outlined just the -- and quoted the various Democrats that are in there. They have no concern about spending. They -- and so I think, you know, it's going to have to get a lot worse and the wake-up call should have been here long before now. I think this one thing we're talking about now, this $750 billion when we've never before allowed an elected bureaucrat to have that kind of control, that is serving as a wake-up call and I hope you will help try to get this thing done. That will at least stop the bleeding. What we're doing now is worrying about what to do with the patient while he's still bleeding. Let's stop the bleeding.

Glenn: Senator, I will look at the bill and we will talk again. Keep up the good fight and let us know what we can do and do me a favor, will you?

Inhofe: Yeah.

Glenn: Kick Republican ass and wake them up. Stop having them sit on the fence. Find their conservative values. Have them take out their little pocket Constitution, God forbid they don't have it with them, and have them stand up and have a spine for what they are and who they are and who we are, for the love of Pete.

Inhofe: That's my assignment.

Glenn: Thank you very much. I love this guy. Senator Inhofe.

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


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.