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

Exclusive: NYT docs on McCain Op-Ed

July 24, 2008
 Radio Clips

The Glenn Beck Program

Please note: This is not real at all, it's completely made up. We learned this technique from the New York Times.

[It's the document the Times doesn't want you to see...John McCain's original rejected Op-Ed piece WITH the NYT very own shocking suggestions...]

 [NYT1]Never use birth name when option of MoveOn dot org name is available.
 [NYT2]We don’t usually worry about printing non-truths, but this just can’t be true. And we refuse to investigate it any further, so.
 [NYT3]People won’t understand positive
 [NYT5]This is just mean. You are a mean old man. Can’t you cut the guy some slack?
 [NYT6]Geez, Senator. This is going to be a short piece if you keep trying the old school politics of using the facts against your opponent. We don’t like facts here---that’s not what we do.
 [NYT7]Objection!  Speculation…move to strike.
 [NYT8]Troops? We here at the New York Times better know them as domestic murderers. Didn’t you read our wonderful piece unlocking the trend that all war vets come home and start killing people?

In January 2007, when General David Betrayus Petraeus[NYT1] took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” He was completely wrong. The situation in Iraq is hopeless, the surge was a failure. Even Comrade Harry Reid has declared the war lost, so it must be true. Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains[NYT2] 

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy[NYT3] I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. I have to say, Senator Obama really got that one right. He nailed it. And have I mentioned that because He is so young, fresh, vibrant, brilliant, eloquent---that he makes me look even older than I am? It’s kind of annoying but I’m probably only irritated because that’s what happens when you get really old. 

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted[NYT5] [NYT6] .

The success[NYT7]  of the failure of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops[NYT8] domestic murderers. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speechsermon  this week, Hhe offered hHis “ Holy plan for Iraq” in advance of hHis first “fact findingMessianic Journey” trip to that country in more than three two thousand years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops assassins of the innocent out within 16 months, but it also was a message of hope, because after all, Senator Obama is the Savior of mankind. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.It was a far cry from the message that I brought over there which mainly consisted of spreading my love for the games of Scrabble,  and Shuffleboard, and murder of minorities.



To make this point, He manglesuses only  the hard evidence. He deftly points out that makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable. How do I top that? All I can offer is four more years of George W. Bush, and making the White House smell like those houses that old people live in. , when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, under the guidance of President Obama.but tThis  does not,means that as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops. The only help we should be giving them is, of course, all the sensitive locations of any remaining United States soldiers just before major operations---something this very paper has done very, very well.



No one favorsI favor a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq, as Senator Obama accurately charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. Of course, that won’t happen because Iraq is, as I’ve said, already lost so there is really no room for improvement. As we draw down in Iraq, we can make sure to give all of our troops racist soldier’s locations to the enemy so they can have adequate time to prepare for an attack. beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops evil soldiers  from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013. I will be 107 years old at that time. Probably won’t be able to talk much anymore. I’ll be going to the bathroom every five minutes. I’ll be so, so, so very old and crusty. You know how Presidents look so young when they start and then by the end of their term they have aged? Can you imagine what I will look like at the end of my term? I’ll try to play as much Pinochle as possible to stay fit, but the job of President can be, at times, too demanding for those shananegans.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama. Unfortunately for me and my campaign, Senator Obama is once again correct and I am once again siding with George W. Bush and his corrupt administration.




Senator Obama has said that hHe would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, and I commend him for that. He is truly showing signs that He will be a great President. I’m starting to think that perhaps I should just bail on this whole thing and keep the cushy job in the Senate. Did you know they have new puzzles out in the lobby for us to work on every week? I’m talking the 5,000 piece ones. I know!

 [NYT9]Blah blah blah shut up already old man!

but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous[NYT9] .”

The danger hope is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have so valiantly in the past when we’ve had too few troops military based serial killers  in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing so much from recent history. I find it ironicneat  that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration French by waving the “Mission AccomplishedWe surrender” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed overjoyed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But iIf we don’t win the war, our enemies will.Good! A triumph for the terrorists would be a disasteran overall positive for us. That is something I will wish I’d not allow to happen as president, but I’m too incompetent and old. A triumph for the terrorists. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.May the Universe Bless America, and may Mother Earth bless the animals, rocks and trees. Thank you.

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.