Glenn Beck: Obama/Palin 'pig' controversy?



GLENN: Do we have Honky Whitesville on with us? Because I want to get right to the point, I want to get right to the big topic of the day and that is Obama and his "You can put lipstick on a pig" remark.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Oh, please.

GLENN: Hello, honky.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Hello, Mr. Beck, thank you for having me on the program for addressing the lies that you are going to spread. I want to get right in front of it.

GLENN: I'm not addressing lies. Do we have the actual audio?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Play that again.

GLENN: I'd like to have the audio of what Obama said and also what Sarah Palin said.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Fine.

GLENN: Go ahead. Go ahead, Dan.

OBAMA: That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. But, you know, you can't? ?you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.

GLENN: Yeah, go ahead.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: I know what you're going to try to do today. You know, I know what you do.

GLENN: What am I trying to do?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: You are going to try to spin that into some comment about Sarah Palin.

GLENN: Do you have, Dan, do you have what Sarah Palin said during the convention?

GOVERNOR PALIN: I love those hockey moms. You know they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick.

GLENN: I mean, that's probably her most famous line. You know, if Barack Obama would have said this? ?if he would have said this a couple of weeks ago, you know, I would have maybe bought that he wasn't saying that. I mean because, you know, that's a famous line, et cetera, et cetera. But the reaction of the crowd behind Obama, it shows that they knew exactly what he was trying to say here.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Look, I can say from an official campaign perspective that Barack Obama didn't even see that speech.

GLENN: He didn't see the speech?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Yeah, he didn't watch the speech.

GLENN: Really?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: He was busy. He had some other? ?

GLENN: What was he doing?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Well, he had some other things doing and I don't? ?

GLENN: Was he organizing any communities?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Again I don't think that's? ?you know, I don't think it's funny. And I understand you are trying to be? ?you are trying to be cute, but it's really ridiculous. I mean, he doesn't even know who Sarah Palin is. I'll tell you that right now. As official campaign, you can quote me on that. He doesn't even know who Sarah Palin is.

GLENN: He has no idea who she is?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: No, he only knows now because of people reacting to this comment. He had absolutely no idea. And, you know, people are trying to spin this into some sexist thing and it's ridiculous. Obama has stood up for women across America his entire campaign. You know, there's only one thing worse than a male chauvinist pig.

GLENN: See, this isn't really? ?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: There's only one thing worse than a male chauvinist big.

GLENN: Yeah, what is it?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: A woman who won't do what she's told. No, I kid. I shouldn't say that.

GLENN: Hold on a second. See, this is the kind of judgment we're talking about during the campaign that probably is not a good idea.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: It's just, look, we joke around the campaign. You know, some say there's a problem with judgment but, you know, we have fun with all sides. You know, like how many men does it take to open a beer?

GLENN: See, I don't? ?you know, I don't think it's? ?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: How many men does it take to open up a beer?

GLENN: I have no idea.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: None. Should be open by the time she brings it. No, you know what? I'm kidding. I'm kidding, but, you know, it's like the point that Barack was making the other day. It's very similar to this. I think the question gets answered, for example, why do women get married in white.

GLENN: I don't think Barack Obama was saying this.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: No, he was making the point. He said, you know what, let me ask you this, everybody, why do women get married in white? And we all said, I don't know, Barack, why? And he said, of course? ?you know, this guy is very smart and he went to Harvard and he responded very intelligently because he said, they get married in white so they can match the kitchen appliances. And I think his point there was very well taken by the crowd.

GLENN: See, I think this is very sexist. I think to say that she's getting married in white so she could match the kitchen appliances might be? ?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: See, I don't see it as that way. I think it's about making a point. Think about it this way, Glenn. You know, our time has come, okay? It's time for change, as you know, and time is what we're talking about here and it's like what Barack said the other day when he said, why don't women wear watches. Why don't women wear watches?

GLENN: I don't know why women don't wear watches.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: There's a clock on the stove.

GLENN: You see? ?

HONKY WHITESVILLE: See, this is important issues.

GLENN: See, I don't think this is important. I think this is in very poor taste coming from an Obama guy.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Well, I am a campaign spokesman. I do think it's important to get to the issues. I don't want to just talk about this. You are the one that brought this up. I wanted to talk about issues. For example, energy. Energy is a very important issue.

GLENN: Okay, good. Let's talk about that.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Think about that, our oil dependency. We are too dependent on foreign oil, Glenn. And, you know, I think what Barack said the other day really sums it up when he said why don't women need driver's licenses. Why don't women need driver's licenses?

GLENN: I don't know why. I don't think this is going to the issues.

HONKY WHITESVILLE: Women don't need driver's license because there's no road between the bedroom and the kitchen. And I think he had a really good point when he said that.

GLENN: Okay, thank you very much, Honky Whitesville. This is? ?you know what, let me tell you something. Play the audio again. I'm going to give Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt. And I don't mean it sincerely. I can't do it. Look, he went to Columbia and Harvard, all right? He's smarter than you. He's smarter than me. So I can't begin to understand his gigantic brain. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he's smarter than making this kind of comment, knowing what he was doing, knowing that he was, you know? ?that it would be taken on the lipstick line. But listen to the crowd. The crowd took it this way, but the crowd is made up of little people. The crowd is just made up of, you know, peasants, farmers, shop owners. You know, people that need to be led. And they were so stupid that they clearly took it that way because listen to the reaction.

Look, you can say a million times, you put lipstick on a pig... I think John McCain even said, you know, Hillary Clinton's healthcare package, you know, you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. That's not a funny line. That's a line that, you know, may have come out of the medieval period. I mean, it's not something that you hear, you know, "You can put lipstick on a pig..." (laughing). Where is that? Where is that coming from? You've heard that line a million times. It's not a funny line. But listen carefully to the crowd and ask yourself, why are they laughing that hard at this line?

OBAMA: That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different.

GLENN: Okay, stop for a second. I just have to point out. I'm sorry, riddled with ADD. What the hell did he just say? Can you imagine if George Bush would have said that line exactly like that? I mean, look at how he was? ?I don't even know what he said there.

OBAMA: That's just calling something the same thing something different.

GLENN: What?

OBAMA: But, you know, you can't? ?you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.

GLENN: Uh huh. Uh huh. Okay. Well, let's just put it this way. Barack Obama certainly has the experience to give speeches. He has more experience than Sarah Palin, than John McCain in giving big speeches. He's been giving speeches now for a very long time, but maybe he doesn't have the judgment necessary to give speeches because it doesn't matter. Here's what's going to happen. Republicans are going to say, "Oh, look, he's... and I'm not a Republican, but I'm a conservative and I don't buy it." These people have such double standards every step of the way. They can take apart women, they can take apart anybody. They can say? ?they've got a Klans member in the Senate! Oh, I'm sorry, a former Klans member. You know, pretty much once a Klans member, always a Klans member. They have a former Klans member in the Senate. That's totally fine. But anybody who makes some sort of a comment about a 90 year old man at his birthday party, oh, my gosh, he's a racist. But not the former Klans member. He's totally cool.

These people live in the world of double standard.

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.