Glenn Beck: Obama's problem


Related Article

Rev. Wright Beyond the Bite; See His Context for Yourself

Glenn:  Here's the people who keep saying this.  Here are the people who keep saying this, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louie Farrakhan, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  What do they all have in common?  I mean, they all have the same approach.  It's that angry, you know ‑‑ Al Sharpton said over the weekend, "I'm going to shut this city down."  Over what?  I read ‑‑ I read the article.  I was for you until I started reading the facts of the case here in New York where, you know, the 50 bullets, the cops, they used 50 bullets and shot ‑‑ what's his name, Bell? .

Stu:  Shawn Bell.

Glenn:  I mean, horrible, horrible situation.  Horrible tragedy, but I can see how the case worked out that way.  It's all these people who are just ‑‑ they are ‑‑ they're using ‑‑ why do you think Jeremiah right is up there right now?  This isn't helpful to get the first black man elected President of the United States and you know what?  America is perfectly fine, perfectly fine having the first black American serve in office.  We're totally cool with that.  We are not cool with the first angry black man.


Do you know what my problem is with John McCain?  John McCain, I don't know if ‑‑ well, just one of the problems, but I don't know if this guy has the temperament to be the President of the United States.  He's got a temper to him and he's arrogant.  I don't want a guy who is arrogant with a quick temper in the White House.  I don't want ‑‑ I don't care what color they are.  I don't want an angry white man and I don't want an angry black man.  That's why people like Colin Powell, he seems reasonable.  I disagree with Colin Powell.  I don't think I would vote for Colin Powell because of his politics, but, you know, before I knew his politics, I was perfectly willing to vote for Colin Powell, because he seems reasonable.


Jeremiah Wright does not seem like a reasonable guy and anybody who cannot judge that this man wasn't reasonable when you're that close to him for 20 years does not have the judgment to be the President of the United States.

Glenn:  1‑888‑727‑BECK.

(Out at 9:43 a.m.)

Glenn:  Here's one thing about Reverend Wright that I don't really understand.  I don't understand how he feels honestly about God, because I want you to listen to this last part of this answer about Lewis Farrakhan.

(Audio played.)

Glenn:  Is he your friend?

(Audio played.)

Glenn:  That's the question I want to know.  Here's the question:  He didn't put me in slaves.  He didn't put new chains.  Who did?  Who did you, sir.  You.  Who put you in chains?  It's my contention that you put you in chains because there are no literal chains that are hanging around you now.  The chains are created by you and that's a mighty nice multimillion dollar chain that you have there that you call a house.  So, you are putting you in chains and then he says, He didn't create me this color.  Who created you this color?  Is this a problem with God?  Do you have a problem with God creating you that color, quote, unquote?

Here's another quote.  He said, God set me free to forgive stupidity.  He set me free to praise God in spite of an oppressive government.  Your government has been oppressing folks since we stole this country from the Comanche, but I'm going to praise him in spite of the government.  Our government has been oppressing folks since it defined the African‑American man as three fifths a person, but I'm going to praise him in spite of our government.

Okay.  You're going to praise him in spite of.  So, I don't understand that relationship, but here's something else.  And I wanted to make sure I was absolutely right and I called professor after professor after professor yesterday to make sure that I was right on this.  The three fifths of a person drives me crazy because it shows people's ignorance of history.  It's related to Article 1 of the Constitution.  Representatives and direct portions shall be apportioned among several states which may be included in this unit according to their respective numbers which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound as service for a number of years and excluding Indians not taxed three fifths of all other persons.

Now, he says, Reverend Wright keeps saying that you have to consider the context of everything.  They're taking me out of context.  They're only using a sound bite, kind of like you quoting the founding fathers by same I'm only three fifths a person.  Well, let's just look at this in context.  This was pro ‑‑ this was pro abolition.  It was the proslavery faction that wanted to give the slaves the full human status.  Why?  Why?  Because they wanted more representation in Congress.  It would have maximized the congressional representation of the southern states.  It was the abolitionists who wanted to completely do away with slavery, that didn't want black individuals to count at all.  They said, Let's not let them count at all because then their population in the south will be very small and we'll have a chance to overturn it in Congress.  It had nothing to do with rejecting someone's humanity, but to preserve and strengthen the anti‑slavery majority in Congress.  It was not a ‑‑ proslavery southerner but an anti‑slavery northerner.  His name was James Wilson of Pennsylvania.  Why does Pennsylvania play such an important role?  Oh, I remember, because Ben Franklin was one of the first big abolitionists.  It was James Wilson that proposed the three fifths compromise.

Now, why, why would you do this, Jeremiah Wright?  Why would somebody who is anti‑slavery propose this?  It kept the southern slavery views in check.  It reduced their political power by limiting their representation in the House of Representatives.  That's why it happened.  Frederick Douglas, quote, it gives representatives to the south for three fifths of its slaves but what does that amount to?  It's a down right disability laid upon the slave holding states, one which deprives those states of two fifths of their natural bias of representation.  Instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of two fifths of political power to free over slave states, end quote.  Frederick Douglas.

I am so sick and tired of people distorting our history for their own political gain.  I am so sick and tired of people teaching my daughters, your family lies about our founding fathers and lies about our country.  We are a good country.  We are a decent people.  Our founding fathers were God inspired and they did not hate others, period.

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.