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

Glenn Beck: Pelosi says Iran responsible for Iraq success

June 03, 2008
 Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program




Nancy Pelosi

GLENN: 888-727-BECK, 888-727-BECK. Did you hear, Nancy Pelosi has finally admitted that progress has been made in Iraq. I never, ever thought I would see the day when she would admit that there was progress in Iraq, but she has and here's the audio.

PELOSI: Some of the success of the surge is at the goodwill of the Iranians. They decided in Basra when the fighting would end. They negotiated that cessation of hostilities.

GLENN: The goodwill of the Iranians? The goodwill of the Iranians. You mean the ones that have been killing our troops and making weapons and sneaking them across the border and blowing our troops up, that goodwill? You mean the goodwill from the people who have just yet again made another threat against Israel and said it was about time it vanished? I've never been one to get all hot and bothered about, you know, when Clinton was in, it wasn't the end of the world. He was bad, I thought it was really bad for the example that he set. I thought it was bad for us culturally. I thought it said -- he said more about us than about him. I learned more about us in the Nineties than I learned about congress and I learned about the President. This one, boy, I can't imagine. These people are so far left that they're talking -- she's talking about the goodwill of the Iranian leader.

Stu, how much goodwill do you think people have that take homosexuals and kill them?

STU: Generally not a -- they don't seem like a partying bunch.

GLENN: Wouldn't you think that Nancy Pelosi who represents the San Francisco area might have a problem with people who take homosexuals out into the street, flog them and kill them?

STU: Well, I don't know if actually you remember this. He did point out that there were no homosexuals in Iran.

GLENN: Oh, yeah, that's right. I don't understand. I really, I don't understand.

STU: It's an -- it is literally an unquenchable thirst to find negative about Iraq, to just not give credit and to try to make it nonpolitical.

GLENN: It's beyond that. I really don't understand that. Look, I'm willing to look at the facts. I'm willing to look at the facts that, okay, the facts were wrong when we went in. I'm willing to look at that. I'm willing to look at the fact that it was fought horribly, horribly not by the people on the ground but by Washington. It was fought horribly. We needed more boots on the ground. I'm willing to look at that. I'm willing to admit mistakes on that. I didn't do it but I'm willing to say we made mistakes. It's not just that they are looking to have us lose any way they can. It's who they're willing to throw in with. They are willing to throw in with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. You're kidding me, right? You're giving this guy goodwill? A religious zealot. Can you imagine. I mean, look how much heat that John Hagee gets. He's crazy because he says that maybe the end of the world is coming, Jesus is coming soon. Look how much they hate that guy. And yet a guy who stands at the UN and says, oh, Allah, help me hasten the return of the promised one. If you understood what he was talking about, you would understand that he's talking about, "Help me bring chaos to Earth because the faster we wash this Earth with blood, the faster the promised one will come." That's what his theology is. And they are so willing to get into bed with the worst people ever. They are willing to get into bed with Chavez. I don't understand it. It's so much more than just wanting to win here and win an election. This is a total view change of the United States. It is not just a different way to look at a problem. This is, a problem is the United States that the regime over in Iraq -- I'm sorry, in Iran has goodwill. They have been killing our soldiers! That Chavez makes some good points. He's a dictator. It goes back to what liberals will not admit to. They liked Mussolini before Mussolini threw in with Hitler. They liked him. He was the man of the year from Time magazine and it was in a good way. There were articles left and right in the New York Times and the New Yorker and everything elsewhere people said this is it, this is the new system, a benevolent guy who just is a strong arm and handles it all. It's craziness. Now they don't even care if it's a good guy. Now he can be as crazy as crazy town will allow you to be. He can be as evil as evil will allow you to be and they are still like, he's not that bad. He's better than us.

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.