A war report discredited

GLENN: I am so proud of the fact to tell you I am not a journalist, and I'm not proud because I hate journalists. I actually have more respect for some journalists than I ever had. It's a hard job they're doing because telling the truth is really difficult. In today's world, very difficult. I'm proud of the fact that I come to you and say, this is who I am; I'm a conservative. I'm not a journalist. I could be wrong. I might be right. Listen to this side of the story." But nobody's doing that. And they are using -- for instance, Keith Olbermann on MSNBC is using organizations like Media Matters and he will take stuff right out of Media Matters and he will just put it right directly on the air. Well, who the hell is Media Matters? Who appointed them a gate keeper? And it's fine. If you want to credit Media Matters, if you want to say my source on this is Media Matters, then good, do it. I'm not throwing Media Matters under the bus. I'm throwing under the bus people not revealing who they are.

Related Story: The Lancet's Political Hit

George Soros is one of these guys. I just picked up -- because there's a story on George Soros that has come out over the weekend and I just picked up Fusion magazine. In fact, how right on the money is this article in Fusion that's out right now. Stu, can you still order this or can we make it available online or how does this work?

STU: Yeah, they are going to have it -- slight problem there. They're going to have up on the site later today. It's going to be listed as a back issue. It's the January/February issue.

GLENN: So what we did is we did a story, if you are a Fusion subscriber, following the Soros money trail and we started with -- how cynical is it to question a philanthropist who has donated billions of dollars to hundreds of charities over the years, how cynical is it? How cynical do you have to be to say, we should question this guy? Granted it's very cynical but it needs to be done. It's not conservative hate mongering paranoia. It's not sicking the IRS on this guy. It's just, let's find out who this guy is.

In case you don't know he is one of the world's richest and most influential men, George Soros. According to Forbes he earned $840 million in 2006 through his Soros fund management. All of those came after he wrote articles and books titled the Capitalist Threat. He made $840 million in a year after he wrote a book called the Capitalist Threat and the Bubble of American Supremacy. Nothing surprising about the super wealthy in America claiming that America is such a horrible place. But what this man wants to do is create a conceptual, using his words, a conceptual framework of an open society and what it represents. In his book Open Society, Reforming Global Capitalism he says quote, open society stands for freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights, social justice and social responsibility as a universal idea. Now, how much you're willing to reform in order to achieve that idea is open to a myriad of interpretations, and it is another matter entirely. Someone so intent on openness, it's worth noting that Soros was found guilty of insider trading by a French court in 2002 due to his connection to take over attempt of one of the main banks in France. He's also known as, quoting, the man who broke the bank of England in 1992 after selling the British pound short and netting over a billion dollars in one day. That's who George Soros is. The guy who broke the bank of England. What are his intentions? What is he funding?

Here's a story that nobody wants to talk about. Nobody in the mainstream press. And it is the story about the 655,000 Iraqi civilians that are dead. It led Rosie O'Donnell to say, 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who's the terrorist here. Do you remember that? Also quoting the study from the 655,000 dead Iraqi civilians, Osama Bin Laden. And among the things that catch the eye of one who considers the repercussions of your unjust war in Iraq is the failure of your Democratic system, despite it raising the slogans of justice, liberty and equality, American statistics speak of the killing of more than 650,000 people of Iraq as a result of the war and its repercussions. This is Osama Bin Laden, quoting: There is no longer any doubt now. Finally the truth can be told. George Soros is funding the propaganda of Osama Bin Laden. It wasn't just Rosie O'Donnell and Osama Bin Laden embracing the report. It was embraced everywhere. It was a report, The Lancet report that said 600 -- well, let me give it to you. It came out three weeks before the elections in 2006. British medical journal, Lancet, they published a bombshell report estimating the casualties in Iraq had exceeded 650,000 since we went in in 2003. Within a release of the week -- within a week of the release it had been featured on 25 news shows, 188 newspapers and magazine articles. I'm wondering if the debunking is going to get the same play. The death toll according to this report was ten times what had been estimated by the U.S. and Iraqi governments and ten times greater than human rights groups. It was funded by the Open Society Institute, funded by George Soros. The two coauthors, Gilbert Burnham and Les Roberts, John Hopkins University, they told reporters that they opposed the war from the outset and they sent the report to The Lancet, to the editor and said, you've got to report this right now. There was no time for a peer review. The key person in collecting all of this data was an Iraqi researcher. He had failed to follow the customary scientific practice of making his data available for inspection. He also had been an official in Saddam's ministry of health. By the way, that was when the Saddam Hussein, the dictator, was attempting to end international sanctions against Iraq. He also wrote articles asserting that many Iraqis were dying from cancer because of uranium shells that the United States was using. The Lancet study was funded by George Soros. They sent the report to The Lancet on the condition that it be published before the election. The study couldn't be more unreliable. Nobody followed anything. It's because it's what the press wanted to hear. It's what the politicians wanted to hear. So it went out there and it will be dismissed as no big deal. But imagine if the -- imagine if the deaths were 650,000 and Rush Limbaugh had put together and funded a study and pushed it through and it became the iconic study and it showed that there were only 65,000 deaths. We reverse the numbers and the situation and Rush Limbaugh, his study showed that everybody accepted it and the media ran with and the Government ran with. Can you imagine if it then came out in the show that he was behind the funding and they pushed it through and the people who did it were sketchy at best and he forced it before an election. Do you think that would make the front page of every paper in America? Do you think that would be a big deal? Do you think that would be a scandal? Do you think anything that Rush Limbaugh ever touched would be painted? Of course it would be. The question is will everything that George Soros touches be tainted. The answer is no because in many cases you can't find out what George Soros touches because he's worth billions of dollars and he hides his fingerprints on everything.

This is not me saying this, by the way. This is the Wall Street Journal reporting this. Again, not saying George Soros is an evil guy. Might be, might not be. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have other sides of the story. I'm saying we're getting it jammed down our throat and we're getting it jammed down our throat by people who are undercover who are pulling purse strings, who are manipulating the news. You want to go get your news from somebody who has an agenda? That's fine. Just insist that they tell you that agenda. Don't tell me that you're fair and balanced. You know what? I'm fair and biased. And that's the way it should be. I'm fair but I'm biased. I'm not a journalist. I'm an opinion guy. That's what I do. These are my opinions.

More opinions in America, not fewer.

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.

We've heard a lot about critical race theory lately, and for good reason: It's a racist ideology designed to corrupt our children and undermine our American values. But most of what we see are the results of a process that has been underway for decades. And that's not something the mainstream media, the Democrat Party, and even teachers unions want you to know. They're doing everything in their power to try and convince you that it's no big deal. They want to sweep everything under the rug and keep you in the dark. To fight it, we need to understand what fuels it.

On his Wednesday night special this week, Glenn Beck exposes the deep-seated Marxist origins of CRT and debunks the claims that it's just a harmless term for a school of legal scholarship. Newsweek opinion editor Josh Hammer joins to argue why we must ban critical race theory from our schools if we want to save a very divided nation.

Watch the full "Glenn TV" episode 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.