John Edwards Speech

GLENN: Let me talk a little bit about John Edwards. Since we're talking about mediocrity, let's talk about John Edwards. Why.

Did anybody see -- Stu, did you watch his speeches after he lost in Iowa or New Hampshire?

STU: I saw New Hampshire.

GLENN: You saw New Hampshire?

STU: Yeah.



Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards

GLENN: If you saw Iowa, you also saw him give the same speech in New Hampshire. It was the same speech.

STU: Because I saw -- the speech I saw was the one where he was, you know, outlining all the horrible things that have happened to individuals around America.

GLENN: Why, why. Why. You mean like little poor little Sally Muckenfutch who was born without a face?

STU: And why was she born without a face?

GLENN: Why, why, why was she born without a face? Do you know how many children are born without faces here in America? Okay, well, none, none, but it could happen here and that's why our country's spiraling out of control. We need programs for children without faces. Why. Why?

STU: He's the worst, I think, of the --

GLENN: Here's the thing. What is the guy railing against, Stu? What is he railing against?

STU: The healthcare system, poverty?

GLENN: Poverty, oh, my gosh, poverty. The guy has a basketball court in his house. He has an indoor pool in his house and he built a -- he clearcut his backyard for a soccer field. Why. At the end of his driveway is a trailer park. Why. There are two Americans, aren't there? There are two Americas. The world that John Edwards lives in and then the rest of it. And what kills me is this guy goes on and on and on about poverty and, you know, how we need to be responsible for each other, et cetera, et cetera. Taxpayers would actually save money if Edwards quits right now. If he quits -- because he qualifies for matching government campaign funds, that government handout, he qualifies for that. This guy is unbelievable because he's saying I'm going to keep on going, I'm fighting for you. But he's taking taxpayer money. Why, why. Why, why. Why, why. I mean, on one hand he talks about saving the, you know, the middle class, poor Sally Muckenfutch who was born with a rock tongue and kneecaps instead of eyes, about people sleeping on highways. All across the great America, this great land of ours are people sleeping on highways. I've never seen anybody sleep on a highway. "They're everywhere. You just don't see them because you don't care to look for them, but I know one, Bob Johansonbergstein. I talked to Mr. Bob Johansonbergsteinhenson and he told me about sleeping on the highways. It's an epidemic. He continues a hopeless campaign at your expense. Why, why. Why, why. John, why? Do you see the hypocrisy? Why? Hello, John, John? Hello? John, can you hear me? I'm channeling you right now. Ooh, why? Why you're an idiot. Why, why. In his second place victory speech in Iowa, he talked about how this was clearly a message for change. Yeah, times are changing, people. I mean, look how much, how much change people want. All aboard the change express. Everybody wants change. I can bring change. Let me tell you, if you implement any of my policies, all you'll have left in your pockets, change. He pointed out that 99% of the people in America hadn't voted yet. The change express has hit some delays in New Hampshire, you know, after a crushing defeat there as distant third place victory speech focused on the fact that, you know, most people in America hadn't voted. And he actually said two down, 48 to go. I mean, John, may I just take a moment here to explain how that phrase works? When you win something, you can use that phrase, two down, 48 to go. Not when you lose something. Definitely not when you lose multiple somethings. Two down, 48 to go. You screwed those two up. When you say two down, 48 to go, you are expressing that you believe the next 48 will be as successful as the last two. And let me tell you something, John. I believe you're correct about that, but I don't think you want to be pointing that one out. Ooh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Why, why. Why.

You know, maybe you were talking about the success, you know, in the other America that has another Iowa, maybe. Maybe he's just talking about a parallel universe or maybe he campaigned in the other New Hampshire, the one that didn't have any voters, you know? I think people are ready for that kind of change in that America. The other America, I don't know. You are seen as a phony used car salesman that uses poor people for political gain. I mean, I wouldn't -- Stu.

STU: Yes?

GLENN: Stu.

STU: Yes?

GLENN: Are you even listening to the show?

STU: Yes, I'm in the other room.

GLENN: What are you doing in the other room?

STU: I'm pressing your whys.

GLENN: Let me ask you this, Stu. Is it going too far, because I've already been hammered this week for saying John Edwards should just start wearing the Soviet star on his lapel. Is it going too far to say that John Edwards is the kind of guy that gives you the feeling he could give a speech about how we need to be compassionate to the poor while bundling up poor people and throwing them on a bonfire so he can be warm?

STU: Yes, of course you know that would be inappropriate.

GLENN: Why. Why? I don't -- if I had a cleft palate, I wouldn't have been able to say that.

STU: No, definitely not. It's almost like you are intentionally trying to be insulting right now.

GLENN: Why, why? I mean, I'm not a poverty expert, you know, but I am a thinker. Why not create a third America, you know? I think John Edwards should have one for the rich, one for the poor and then one for him, you know, where everybody has their own 100-acre estate and a basketball court in their house. I mean, I think he can make that -- if the state is big enough, it could be a third America, you know? He could make a homeless campground, set up some tents, have some cookouts, roast marshmallows, sing songs late into the night, then go back to his 100-acre estate. I mean, we have to start somewhere, don't we? And the Edwards campground for people without kneecaps or houses will be the spark that ignites the flame, the flame of change, the flame that smells a little like the bundled-up burning homeless that he may have just used to spark that flame. But I'm not really -- either that or we could have that campground or just a hell of a lot of smelly, homeless rock tongue kneecap people laying around in your yard. I'm not sure which one we could have but we could have that third America and I'm very excited about it. I get excited when I hear him speak, I do. Did you tape those speeches?

STU: Yeah, we have them.

GLENN: Okay. I didn't have time to play both of the speeches. So what we've done is we've kind of combined both of the speeches but I think you get the point. Here's John Edwards. That would be --

STU: Are you saying -- I'm sorry. Do you want his actual speech? I'm not sure what you want. You are setting something up like you know what I'm going to play. It would be awesome if you told me --

GLENN: Hey, Dan?

DAN: Yes?

GLENN: Can I talk to the real powerhouse of the show here for a second? Dan, how are you doing? How are you doing, Dan?

DAN: I'm doing fantastic.

GLENN: You are up for a raise, I think, and a promotion. I think there might be an opening coming.

DAN: Really? Wow, sounds good.

GLENN: Hey, Dan, remember when we all had the meeting and then this morning we listened to the bits and stuff and we had, you know, the John Edwards, the one edited up?

DAN: Yes.

GLENN: So when I say, you know, we didn't have time to play those speeches, so we decided to put them both together, that sounds like a -- what would you go for? If you were the executive producer, what would you say I was just going for?

STU: You are such a sellout.

DAN: Why don't I just play it for you, Glenn?

GLENN: Yeah, just play it. We don't need to go down this road.

EDWARDS: We will never have the America we all dream of, the promise of America which has been available to so many of us will not be available to our children and our grandchildren. Why? And I take this very personally. I watched my grandmother who I loved dearly. Why. She would cook for us, leave the house, walk her way to the mill, work her shift and come back home and take care of us again. Why. My grandfather who was partially paralyzed would go to work the graveyard shift in that mill and come back in the morning when we would have breakfast together. Why. My father, who's here with me tonight. Why. Worked 36 years. And my grandmother. Why. Hard, tedious. Hard, why. Hard, tedious, hard, tedious work. Why. Why did he do it? Why. Why, why, why. Why did he struggle and sacrifice. Why did your parents and grandparents struggle and sacrifice? They did it? Why. So that I could have a better life. God bless you! Thank you for everything you've done! Stay with us in this fight. We are in this fight together. Why.

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.