Glenn Beck: Gibbs gives worst answer ever

GLENN: Front page of the paper today, plan to save automaker has risks for the economy. One in five think that this was a good idea, one in five, and yet where is the outcry? Can you imagine George W. Bush or anybody else, anybody else doing things this unpopular? I don't even think Bill Clinton would have gotten away with this. Doing things this out of step with the American people. But the media is afraid of him. They're either in the bag or they're afraid. Jake Tapper is one of the only people that is not afraid of the president. Was it Jake Tapper that was asking the question? Dan, do we have the audio of the press conference yesterday?

DAN: Yeah, but it's not Jake Tapper. It's somebody -- I actually was looking to see who it was. They said Jonathan, I think, or John. So I'm not sure who it was, but I'll find out.

GLENN: Find out for me, will you? We have the audio. I want to play the audio here. And I want you to understand: I don't have a problem with the president going out on a date. The president needs to go out on a date with his wife. You want to keep your -- I mean, my wife and I have a date night. We go out on a date. It's important. However, I want to point out the hypocrisy, but first let's hear how the White House so expertly handled this question of, how did the president pay for this? How much did this cost the American taxpayers to leave Washington D.C. and go on a date with your wife up to New York City? Here's the question and the beautiful answer.

VOICE: Are you going to tell us how much the president and the first lady's date night cost on Saturday night? And if not, why not?

VOICE: Well, Jonathan, I think as -- let me -- I thought it was the air conditioner now and it's the helicopter. You know, I think spokespeople have spoken to this over the weekend that the president would -- or could he, based on the secret service, he would have taken the shuttle, but I would say that the costs were proportionate with travel for presidents and I would encourage you to look up previous coverage on travel costs because they are analogous.

VOICE: Is there any precedent for a president and first lady to take an out-of-town date night like this not connected to an official or even a political previously planned event?

VOICE: You've got probably more researchers than I do.

GLENN: Well, and the spokespeople talked about the spokes statements, spokespeople. Is that the air conditioner?

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: What the -- this guy's the worst. All right. So President Obama, you know, makes good on one campaign promise and that is he promised his wife he would take her out on a date, he would take her to a Broadway show in New York. By the way, the playwright of this show, I don't know if anybody in the media has mentioned this, the playwright of this show had a "white directors need not apply" policy. Anybody mention that? The president wants everybody to understand that he traveled in a smaller plane. He didn't take a Boeing 747 to take his wife out onto a date. He just took the smaller Gulfstream, and two other planes carried staff and reporters. Well, if you are flying three Gulfstreams, is it really saving that much money? The trip cost the taxpayer at least $24,000. There's no way you fire up a Gulfstream for $24,000. There's no way. I mean, how much -- Stu, can you find out for me? How much would a Gulfstream cost from New York to Washington D.C.?

Now, President Obama, a multimillionaire now, was gracious enough to save the taxpayer from paying for dinner and the theater tickets. The tickets were $96.50. Now, I really don't care. Does it -- I wouldn't care about fronting the cost for the president to travel somewhere. He's the president. I don't care that the president went out on a date with his wife. He needs to do it. It's important. But when you're the president, not a president, when you're the president that heard the news that Citigroup had bought a $50 million corporate jet and called the executives to "Fix it," I got a problem. When you are the president, not a president but the president who jumped in line to bash the Big Three automakers for flying in jets to Washington D.C. for bailout hearings because it was a slap in the face to taxpayers, because their budgets were out of control...

STU: (Laughing).

GLENN: And they shouldn't have been wasting money on corporate jets, when you're that president, I've got a problem with it. Because in case you haven't noticed, Mr. President, your budgets are out of control! Maybe it's just me. Everything you do, Mr. President, just as the CEOs that took the bailouts, is on the taxpayer dime. You didn't take a bailout. You're giving the bailouts. You're not somebody who has taken some taxpayer money. You're taking all taxpayer money. Why is it nobody will recognize the hypocrisy in Washington? How much longer will the media silence last? How much longer can this country last if the media remains silent? The self-appointed fourth branch of government.

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


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.