Glenn Beck: More Van Jones lunacy



Free audio, click here to listen

GLENN: Okay, so here's the thing. This is back way back in '09, February of '09. And this is in Berkeley, California?

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. So it's got to be good. Now, somebody in Berkeley I understand asked him a question that I'd like to ask him. Here it is.

(Audio plays).

GLENN: Hang on just a second. You can barely hear it. She says some people are saying, and what I'd like an answer to is are you a Marxist and some of the policies that you are advocating sound Marxist. Here it is.

(Audio plays)

GLENN: Stop. Stop, stop. University of California‑Berkeley. Sounds kind of Marxist. Why do you suppose they're laughing? Are they laughing because that's a ridiculous question or are they laughing ‑‑

PAT: No.

GLENN: Of course it is. Of course it is. You decide. But here's his answer.



Glenn Beck is seen here on the Insider Webcam, an exclusive feature available only to Glenn Beck Insiders. Learn more...

(Audio plays)

VOICE: How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year?

GLENN: Stop. His response, are these Marxist policies, how's that capitalism working out for you. Not just once. Three times. How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year? This is February '09. Okay. So then he says, look, I'm the best friend of capitalists. Listen to this.


in this page of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this page of the struggle.

GLENN: Stop. This is important. We want to make sure it's in context. At this stage of the struggle, and I want to stress that it is only at this stage of the struggle. Stu, you watch the entire speech. What are the ‑‑ what does that mean?

STU: Well, he's talking about the fight to bring back what's right obviously, the justice and democracy and all the things that hope and change is supposed to provide for us.

GLENN: Democracy is code, Democratic elections, et cetera, et cetera. Because remember we're not a democracy. If you want to look at it through the progressive eyes, they changed us in language from a republic to a democracy. The reason why they did that is because the same reason why Chavez ‑‑ they even make this case with Iran. Iran, those were Democratic elections. Really? The people want to be stoned to death in the square? Really, that's what that is? They were elected through the Democratic process. Hugo Chavez, he campaigned not as a communist, not as a dictator. He just did the things he didn't want to do. He just had to do because, well, there were some evil forces out there and there were some emergencies. He didn't campaign as a communist or a dictator. He became one because he had to. And he was elected through the Democratic process.

STU: And this is part of his answer to the previous thing that we heard about Marxism. And he's explaining that, you know, he's working within the system. He's working with businesses and he's trying to make things green through the system at the moment and then he ‑‑

GLENN: At the moment.

PAT: But we heard yesterday or we heard this morning, too, what he wants to do with the system.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's working through the system now. But the system has to change.

GLENN: Play it again. Play it again, the system has to change. Remember ‑‑

VAN JONES: This movement is deeper than a solar panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're going to change the whole system. We're going to change the whole thing.

GLENN: Stop. Okay, now, here is his ‑‑ here is his statement on how he's the best friend of capitalists at this stage in code language, the struggle.

VAN JONES: In this stage of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best (inaudible) capitalist ever had. Thank you very much.

(Applause).

GLENN: What do you think that means? What do you think that means? I mean, America ‑‑

PAT: You are taking that out of context. That's just one thing he said, at that moment. That's one thing he said.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: I notice you didn't play the entire hour and a half. Why?

GLENN: It's available. It's available.

STU: It's the only thing he said at that moment, Pat, that's correct.

PAT: That's the only thing I'm saying at that moment, you took it out of context.

GLENN: Listen to how insidious this is. Listen to him again the way he says, "And I will only tell you about this stage of the struggle." This has areas in it that we're going to highlight here in a second that get extraordinarily dark. Listen to what he said here.

VAN JONES: In this stage of the struggle.

GLENN: Listen to what he said.

VAN JONES: And I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best (inaudible) capitalist ever had. Thank you very much.

GLENN: Okay. Now, let me just hit one more. This will be Cut 7. One more on the game that we're playing. They have to be very careful with their language because they can't come out and say, "I'm a communist." I mean, he has. And he seems to be getting away with it, which is weird. You have to be a detective. Why? Well, let Van Jones himself explain why.

VAN JONES: And this won't ‑‑ we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have to prepare ourselves. We can't just push the people. We can push for (inaudible), but the people ‑‑ it must be a dance, you know. We have to listen, listen, listen, listen. And then learn. And then co‑lead, try to coauthor a different future with folks. And we have to assume that's going to take a long time, but sometimes what should have taken another 20 years, Barack Hussein Obama, can take a season.

GLENN: I mean, America, am I wrong? Where is the press? We have listened to how insidious that was. We have to listen, listen and learn and maybe coauthor. And what should have taken 20 years, sometimes it only takes a season. Listen again to the very beginning of Cut 7. I want you to listen because he doesn't say "Will take." He says "Won't." Listen carefully.

VAN JONES: And this won't ‑‑ we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have ‑‑

GLENN: Stop. We have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. I'm telling you something wicked this way comes. I pray every night for more time. I don't know what anyone has in mind, but they are very well aware of an event. An event is coming and they will use that event to seize power. You are looking at the administration of Chavez. Stu is looking at me like, how do you ‑‑ how am I not saying? Listen to Cut, listen to Cut 2 and you tell me. You tell ‑‑ Stu, help me out here.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Tell me how someone can say these things. This is the game plan of Chavez. And unless the president comes out and says, "Hey, hey, hey, I didn't know any of these things," get out, get away. I disavow all of these things. You have to assume ‑‑ isn't it reasonable ‑‑ if it's not, help me out. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the president knows about it and is with it?

STU: Well, I mean, it's ‑‑ you can certainly make the argument, I'm sure they would, this is one guy in his administration, he's working on one specific task, he's ‑‑ you know, he may or may not have known about this speech. I don't know. But he is one of the ‑‑ it doesn't mean that ‑‑ I think you can make a legitimate case, a very obvious case that Van Jones wants that. I mean, Van Jones clearly and seemingly outwardly is pushing for ‑‑

GLENN: America must stand up. Then America must stand up. You are looking ‑‑ then let me rephrase. You are looking at a man who I truly believe could be a member of the Chavez administration, and America must stand up and ask this administration: Are you a Chavez administration or are you an American administration. Are you ‑‑ do you believe in capitalism, do you believe in the Constitution, do you believe in the founding of our country or do you believe in a strongman. And here's why I say a strongman. And I'm telling you, you know when people say that Barack Obama ‑‑ play the place where he says, you know, we need to have a civilian military that is as well funded, et cetera, et cetera. People are saying, no, he just wants a ‑‑ you know, he just wants a diplomatic corps. A diplomatic corps? You don't call that a civilian security force. That's not what that's called. That's called a diplomatic corps, not a civilian security force. Here's what he said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

GLENN: Okay, stop. I'm telling you I am putting some pieces together of Van Jones and some other events that are going on that are terrifying. And I am not going to bring them to you until I have all of the pieces and make sure that all of them have been vetted six ways to Sunday. But here I will give you a piece in his own words. If you're looking for a leader that is the guy who's going to put the boots on the ground, who knows how to, knows how to engage people in fear and scare tactics and bullying and revolutionary tactics, it's Van Jones. Now, here's one piece. Play just the beginning of this. This is what has been heard before. I'm not going to, quote, selectively edit because this is not about the Republicans. There is so much more. This has just come out. Listen to this.

VOICE: How were the Republicans able to push things through when they had less than 60 senators but somehow we can't?

VAN JONES: Well, the answer to that is they're [ BLEEP ].

GLENN: Okay, stop. The Republicans are A‑holes. That's his answer and that's the one that's going around on the Internet right now. I have to take a break because of the network restrictions here, but when I come back I'm going to play the rest of it and... friends, Americans, countrymen, you tell me this is about the Republicans and you tell me this man isn't just a communist, a revolutionary, in his own words. I believe this man is a danger to the republic, a real danger.

In the final days before the 2020 election, President Donald Trump is gaining among black voters, particularly men, because his record of accomplishments "speaks for itself" and the "façade" that President Trump is a racist "just doesn't ring true," argued sports columnist Jason Whitlock on "The Glenn Beck Radio Program" Tuesday.

Jason, who recently interviewed the president at the White House for OutKick.com, shared his thoughts on why he believes many black Americans — notably celebrities such as Kanye West, Ice Cube, and 50 Cent — are breaking from the "façade" that President Trump is a "flaming racist."

"I really believe the facts are starting to speak for themselves, and that Donald Trump's record of accomplishments, particularly as it relates to African Americans, speaks for itself," Jason told Glenn. "He actually has a record to stand on, unlike even Barack Obama. When [Obama] was president, I don't think he had much of a record to stand on, in terms of, 'Hey, what did he actually deliver for African Americans?' President Trump has things he can stand on and, you know, beyond that I think black people understand when he starts talking about black unemployment rate. And America's unemployment rate. And then, when you add in for black men, the façade we've been putting on [President Trump] … you know, this whole thing that he's some flaming racist, it just doesn't ring true."

Jason suggested that Trump's fearlessness, unabashed masculinity, and record of keeping his promises resonates with men in the black community. He also weighed in on how media and social media's bias plays a huge role in convincing people to hate President Trump while ignoring Antifa and others on the Left.

"I keep explaining to people, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, they're some of the most secular places on earth. And we've reduced everyone to a tweet, that we disagree with," he added.

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

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.

Megyn Kelly is not happy about the "disgusting" media coverage of President Donald Trump, specifically pointing to Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview on CBS Sunday.

On the radio program, Megyn told Glenn Beck the media has become so blinded by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they've lost their own credibility — and now they can't get it back.

"It's disgusting. It's stomach-turning," Megyn said of the media's coverage of the president. "But it's just a continuation of what we've seen over the past couple of years. Their 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has blinded them to what they're doing to their own credibility. They can't get it back. It's too late. They've already sacrificed it. And now no one is listening to them other than the hard partisans for whom they craft their news."

Megyn also discussed how she would have covered the recent stories about Hunter and Joe Biden's alleged corruption. Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:


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.

Imagine sometime next year, getting called before HUWAC – the House Un-Woke Activities Committee.

"Are you or have you ever been a member of the un-woke?"

Something like that is not as far-fetched as you might think.

Last week, Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, now a UC Berkeley professor, tweeted this:

Since the 1970s, there have been dozens of "Truth Commissions" around the world like the kind Robert Reich wants in America. Most of these have been set up in Africa and Latin America. Usually it happens in countries after a civil war, or where there's been a regime change – a dictator is finally overthrown, and a commission is set up to address atrocities that happened under the dictator. Or, as in the commissions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, atrocities under communism. Or, in the most famous example, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission addressed the decades of apartheid that ravaged that nation.

These commissions usually conclude with an official final report. These commissions and reports have served as a means of governments trying to close a dark chapter of their country's history, or provide emotional catharsis, as a way to generally move on. Sometimes it kind of works for people, most of the time it leaves people clamoring for more justice.

Here's how one professor described truth commissions in an article in The Conversation last year. He wrote:

The goal of a truth commission… is to hold public hearings to establish the scale and impact of a past injustice, typically involving wide-scale human rights abuses, and make it part of the permanent, unassailable public record. Truth commissions also officially recognize victims and perpetrators in an effort to move beyond the painful past… Some have been used cynically as tools for governments to legitimize themselves by pretending they have dealt with painful history when they have only kicked the can down the road.

See, this is the problem with a lot of "Truth" commissions – they are inherently political. Even if you trust your government and give them all the benefit of the doubt in the world that their Truth commission is trying to do the right thing, it is ALWAYS going to be political. Because these truth commissions are never set up by those who have LOST power in government. They're always established by those who have WON power.

The Deputy Executive Director of the International Center for Transitional Justice says one of the main points in these Truth commissions is that "the victims become protagonists."

A Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility.

So, who are the victims in Robert Reich's America? People like him, members of the far-Left who had to endure the atrocities of four years of a president with different political ideas. What an injustice. I mean, the left's suffering during the Trump administration is almost on the level of apartheid or genocide – so we totally need a Truth commission.

There have been lots of calls for the U.S. to have its own Truth and Reconciliation commission, especially around racial injustice.

This past June, Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California introduced legislation to establish the " United States Commission on Truth, Racial Healing, and Transformation."

Ibram X. Kendi – the high priest of anti-racism, and author of Target's current favorite book " Antiracist Baby" – proposes a Constitutional anti-racism amendment. This amendment would:

establish and permanently fund the Department of Anti-racism (DOA) comprised of formally trained experts on racism and no political appointees. The DOA would be responsible for pre-clearing all local, state and federal public policies to ensure they won't yield racial inequity, monitor those policies, investigate private racist policies when racial inequity surfaces, and monitor public officials for expressions of racist ideas. The DOA would be empowered with disciplinary tools to wield over and against policymakers and public officials who do not voluntarily change their racist policy and ideas.

If you think that is far-fetched, you haven't been paying attention to the Left's growing radicalism. In a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, a Department of Anti-racism is entirely within the realm of possibility. And of course, such a DOA would never stop at policing government.

We're in a dangerous, precarious moment in our history. Given the events of 2020, should Democrats gain the White House, the Senate, and the House, how many commissions will be in our future? They will suddenly have plenty of political capital to drag the nation through years of commission hearings.

And the Left's form of justice is never satisfied. You think it will stop at a T&R commission on race? MSNBC's Chris Hayes tweeted this month about the need for a commission to deal with Americans who are skeptical about wearing masks:

Or what about a Truth commission on religion? I mean, look at those reckless churches spreading Covid this year. Or this would be a big one – a T&R commission on climate change deniers.

The Left is highly selective when it comes to truth. That's why they are the very last group you want in charge of anything with "Truth and Reconciliation" in the title.

This is one of the most incredibly frustrating things about the Left in America today. The Left insists there is no such thing as absolute truth, while simultaneously insisting there are certain approved truths that are undeniable.

So, you can't question "Science" – even though that's pretty much what every great scientist in history did.

You can't question racism as the explanation for all of existence – because, well, just because.

You can't question third-party "Fact-checkers" – because the powers that be, mainly Big Tech right now, have decided they are the Truth referees and you have to trust what they say because they're using certified external fact-checkers. They just forgot to tell you that they actually fund these third-party fact-checkers. It's like if McDonald's told you to trust third-party health inspectors that they were paying for.

The Left thinks it has a monopoly on Truth. They're the enlightened ones, because they've had the correct instruction, they're privy to the actual facts. It's psychotic arrogance. If you don't buy what they're selling, even if you're just skeptical of it, it's because you either don't have the facts, you willingly deny the facts, or you're simply incapable of grasping the truth because you're blinded by your raging racism problem. It's most likely the racism problem.

The Left never learns from its own preaching. For the past 60-plus years they've decried the House Un-American Activities Committee for trying to root out communists, getting people canceled, ruining Hollywood careers, etcetera. But a HUAC-type committee is precisely what Robert Reich is describing and many on the Left want. It's not enough for Trump to be voted out of office. Americans who helped put him there must be punished. They don't want reconciliation, they want retribution. Because the Left doesn't simply loathe Donald Trump, the Left loathes YOU.

President Donald Trump's performance at last night's final presidential debate was "brilliant" and "the best he's ever done," Glenn Beck said on the radio program Friday.

Glenn described the moments he thought President Trump came across as "sincere," "kind," and "well-informed," as well as Joe Biden's biggest downfalls for of the night — from his big statement on wanting to eliminate the oil industry to his unsurprising gaffes as the debate neared the end. But, the question remains: was Trump's "brilliant performance" enough to win the election?

Watch the video be low to get Glenn's take on the final debate before the November 3 election:


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.