Glenn Beck: Pelosi caught in a pickle


Related Story


Republicans Claim Top Lawmakers Were in the Loop on Interrogations

GLENN: This is Nancy Pelosi on what did she know and when did she know?

VOICE: At the time you were briefed, did you raise objections?

PELOSI: It's not appropriate for me to talk about what happens at briefings. It's very interesting that people are talking so briefly. But I can say this: At that or any other briefing, and that was the only briefing that I was briefed on in that regard, we were not, I repeat, not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel, the office of legislative counsel opinions that they could be used.

GLENN: Okay. George Tenet's book, Page 242 of his book: After we received written Department of Justice guidance on interrogation issue, we briefed the chairmen and the ranking members of our oversight committees. While they were not asked to formally approve the program as it was conducted under the president's unilateral authorities, I can recall no objections being raised. Page 242, George Tenet's book.

The minutes of this meeting exist. They kept a record. We know Nancy Pelosi was in these meetings. I think it's time for the American people to demand those meetings' minutes be released. We already know all the other stuff. You notice she said, "I think it's very interesting that people are talking about secret meetings." Really? Now you do? Now you do, now you stand up against them. Why, on the same day, you say this the same day that more pictures have been released of what happened in Abu Ghraib, the same day. You say now it's interesting about this. You know what? You answer to us, Nancy Pelosi. You answer to the American people. And I want to know, are the Democrats playing this game and scamming us and telling us that they were briefed on waterboarding? Or are you scamming us? There's a very simple way to find out who's telling the truth. You can take all the secret stuff out. I just want the names of the people who are in the meeting. We already know those names. I just want them verified that they were there on that day. I want their schedules to be outed. I want to see Nancy Pelosi, "Where were you on that day according to your schedule." I want witnesses called. I don't want them called in congress. I want them called in a people's court. We might even get Doug Llewellyn to do it. So let's release the minutes of that meeting. You can redact everything else. Just say, George Tenet, this is what he said on waterboarding, objection from anyone. She says   in this statement she's saying, "Well, they told us but they didn't tell us that they were going to do it." That is akin to saying, "You know what, I'm going to go over to your grandma's house tonight and I'm going to stay the night and have dinner. I mean, I may end up killing her, but I'm going to have dinner and we're going to watch a movie and then I'm just going to spend the night. I'll call you tomorrow.

That's like   what Nancy Pelosi just said is like now saying, "Well, he didn't tell me he was going to kill her. I mean, he didn't tell me, "Okay, he said that killing may be part of it, but he didn't notify me that he was actually going to kill her!" Excuse me? Who in their right mind would listen to that excuse? "Excuse me. Wait a minute. What did you just say about killing my grandma? What? Hang on, what?" If you had a problem with torture, if you thought waterboarding was torture, you should have said it then and there. If somebody says I'm going to do something outrageous, you don't say, "Oh, well, well call me  " if somebody said, you know what I'm going to do, I'm going to take electrical wires and I'm going to strap them to their private parts, put their feet in water and juice them for a little while. "Excuse me, wait a minute. What was that last one? No, I don't think we do that." Nobody objected in the meeting and if they did, I want to see them. I want to see it. I no longer trust these weasels in Washington. I no longer trust the right; I no longer trust the left. I want to see it, but I   you watch. You watch. This will be buried so damn deeply, I'll be surprised if they say these records even exist anymore. They've been misplaced; I don't know what happened to them; they're gone. I want a GPS wrist bracelet or ankle bracelet on Sandy Berger starting today! I want to know where that bastard is all the time! Don't let   if anybody spots Sandy Berger near any kind of archives, call. Let us know.

STU: You mean call if he specifically says he's going to take the records, right?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: Because you wouldn't call unless he specifically says he's going to   

GLENN: No. If he's anywhere near paper, call. If you see him by a computer and there's a delete button on it, call.

STU: Because I mean, isn't Nancy Pelosi, at the very least, if she were to have said, "Look, I have a major problem with this and, you know, it's obviously your authority but if you do it, I'm going to come after you with all the..."

GLENN: That's all she had to say. That's all she had to say. And if she said that, if she said, "Wait a minute, are we   "if she would have said, "Wait a minute, if waterboarding legal?" "Yes, it is." "Okay, I'm not sure. I want to check into that." Just even that. But if she was talked to about being waterboarding   see, the right says, the Republicans say they not only didn't say anything, there were words of encouragement. There were words, "Is this far enough." I want to see those words. Are the Republicans lying? It's our country. They have betrayed our trust so long for political purposes. They are destroying us with the games they are playing. It is time for us, the adults, to stand up and say, "Sit down, both of you. Bring me the records. Show them to me. And whichever one of you two, and if it's both of you, you are both going to be punished. Both of you." It's just time. It is time to say enough is enough. And whoever's lying, punish them. Whoever is exonerated, great. Congratulations. If that's Nancy Pelosi, great. But we must be able to trust our government. We must be able to know they are telling us the truth.

They are doing the same thing with the banks. Bernanke and Paulson surprisingly have not been put under oath. You know, what's his name, putz face here in New York, who's the DA here in New York   not the DA but   yeah, is it the district attorney? Come on, it's what's his name from Fannie, Cuomo. Here's Cuomo. He's searching for more bonus records. Instead he finds that the Bank of America was threatened by Bernanke and Paulson. Does he put Paulson and Bernanke under oath? Does he pursue that? No, because they are not looking for government corruption. They are looking for anything that empowers them. It's got to stop. It's got to stop.

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.