Glenn Beck: How small is $100 million?



Related Video

GLENN: Barack Obama, yesterday he comes out, he is demanding $100 million in cuts. Whoa, look at this tough guy coming out swinging. And they better find it in the next 90 days. We had to sign trillions of dollars worth of stuff and we had to have it done by Friday. They've got 90 days to find $100 million? I got news for you. You ready? Department of Homeland Security, just over $50 million, they just decided to buy their office supplies differently, not to cut back. Just to buy them differently, and the Department of Homeland Security has they've saved over $50 million. Hmmm, they are halfway there. That's fantastic. They have got another 90 days to figure you got 89 days to figure out the rest of it, gang. $100 million. That's, of course, a lot of money. That's what my daughter said to me last night: Dad, $100 million is a lot to me. Yeah, yeah, me, too. $100 million, that's a lot. It might even be a lot to Warren Buffett. Not as much to Warren Buffett as it is to me.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs tried to downplay the fact that $100 million is only a tiny portion. .0029% of the budget. None of the deficit. Of the budget. Gibbs said this play this audio, please. This is press secretary Robert Gibbs yesterday.

VOICE: Why not target a bigger number?

GIBBS: Well, I think only in Washington D.C. does $100 million

VOICE: This is not a joke. The deficit's giant. $100 million really is only

GIBBS: No joke? I'm not making a joke about it. I'm being completely sincere that only in Washington D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money. It is where I'm from. It is where I grew up. And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.

VOICE: But the point is it's not a


[ OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]

VOICE: $8 billion being minuscule, $8 billion in earmarks. We were talking about that and you said that

VOICE: $100 million is a lot but $8 billion is small?

GIBBS: I think it all adds up, just as the president said, just as Jennifer was good enough to do in her question. If you think we're going to get rid of $1.3 trillion deficit by eliminating one thing, I'd be and the administration would be innumerably happy for you to let us know what that is.

GLENN: So why don't you just get rid of the $8 billion in earmarks? Why don't you just do that? Because it all adds up. No, no, no, the earmarks, that's such a minuscule amount. And by the way, I mean, let's just go through what he's talking about here. The typical family, the typical American family, this is the equivalent of you cutting out a latte per year. A latte per year. Do you think you could convince anyone on planet Earth with a straight face if you came home and you said, "Okay, we are spending out of control, our deficit is crazy, we're overdrawn at the bank, we're about to lose our house, we only have one thing left of value. That is our children's college fund and we are putting all of our debt into that children's college fund and that's the only thing we have left of value and you sat down at the table and you looked across the table at somebody and you said, yes, but I'm cutting out my latte. The response would be, "What?" Maybe somebody at the table would say, "Okay, it's a start. No latte for you anymore?" No, no, no, I just cut out my latte today. But today and every other day, but today I didn't buy a latte. That is what they are asking you to believe is a good thing.

I actually heard Mike Huckabee on the radio say, "Hey, it's a start." Bullcrap it's a start. It's a con game! A family who earns $100,000 a year and if you're faced with a $34,000 budget gap, so you are spending $134,000 every year but you're only bringing in $100,000, this is the equivalent of them giving up $3. You know what? I'm going to cut back three bucks. Three. It is not a start. It is an insult to the intelligence of the American taxpayer. Even the Associated Press said less than one quarter of the budget increase that congress awarded to itself. 4% of the military aid the United States currently sends to Israel. Less than half the cost of one F 22. 7% of the federal subsidy for the money losing Amtrak passenger rail system. 1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and afghan war and the stimulus bill. Obviously it's pathetic, but our president is counting on you not actually thinking. He just wants you to remember that he's cutting.

According to an article in Time magazine, the Obama administration has been working with behavioral psychologists throughout the campaign and he is still working with psychologists to figure out what his actions mean to you! And the best way to convince you that what he's doing is right! He's not doing what's right! He's doing what appears to be right! And he is talking to experts in behavioral science to figure that out! What will make them believe what I'm doing is right? How do we have a guy who is looking into the psychology of behavior to image himself as doing the right thing?

One of the things that psychology team has noticed is that people mostly aren't able to put big numbers in context. Do you think? It's no coincidence that Robert Gibbs can come out one week and tell you that $8 billion is not a lot of money and the next week play the $100 million is a lot card. They have found that if you propose a bill that is $10 million, $10 billion or $10 trillion, people react the exact same way. Yes, smart people like you will catch it, but the rest that are just hoping for change, those dolts, they don't see it. They are going to be the ones that take away, you know, why are these people protesting taxes at tea parties? Don't they know that 95% of all Americans are getting a tax cut? It's a mind game, and it's a mind game that your tax dollars are paying to be played against you. Who do you think is paying for the behavioral scientists? One of the things that this is Obama in his own words: One of the things that everybody here is mindful of as we move forward is dealing with this extraordinary economic crisis. We have a deficit and a confidence gap. When it comes to the American people, we have got to earn their trust. They have to feel confident that their dollars are being spent wisely. Is it a coincidence that he says they've got to feel confident that their dollars are spent wisely as opposed to "We have to spend their dollars wisely"? These people don't care. They don't look at that dollar that you worked for and sent in and paid somebody to find out how many dollars you need to send in. They don't care. They don't associate that dollar with your time, your energy or your hard work: They should be ashamed of themselves every time they spend a dollar. Every time they spend a dollar, they should ask, this is a sacred trust. Is that the best, most effective way we can spend that dollar? Should we spend that dollar? Why not just earn our trust by actually doing trustworthy things instead of meeting with behavioral scientists to trick us into trusting you. All you have to do is listen to this man's comments. You listen to this man's comments and you realize that the $100 million cut isn't even a cut. Where is anyone in the media explaining this to you? Quote: In the next few weeks we'll expect to cut at least 100 current programs in the federal budget I wish there was a period there so we can free up those dollars in order to put them to use in more critical areas like healthcare, education, energy or foreign policy. They're not cutting this to save money. They are cutting these things and shifting those dollars to foreign policy apparatus? What the hell is a foreign policy apparatus? He's cutting it from one area, turning right around and spending it in another. How is that a cut exactly?

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.