RSS

Tag Archives: Glenn Beck

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an “idiot”?

beck-glenn8

In a chapter in his new book in which Beck attempts to explain to “idiots” what “our Founding Fathers really intended,” Glenn Beck appears to praise an obsolete provision of the U.S. Constitution which prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave. In his explanation of the provision, Beck does not mention slavery, saying instead that the provision means that the Founders apparently “felt like there was a value to being able to live here” and lamenting: “Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws.” The curious thing here is that while the section does talk about migration, it is very clear that Section 9 is referencing the slave trade. In fact, the addition of the word “migration” was to soften the repugnancy of the importation of human beings as salves into the newly created Republic. A Republic based on the inalienable truth “that all men are created equal”.

In the introduction to a chapter titled, “The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation,” Beck mocks “idiots” who don’t share his interpretation of the Constitution:

“How many times have you argued with your idiot friends about what’s constitutional and what isn’t? You may even show them the Constitution, but the disagreement continues. That made me think that maybe the problem is that the entire Constitution is written in English — a language that is very difficult for the average idiot to comprehend. In addition, there are several words in the document longer than three letters, making it a tougher read than the “Dick and Jane” books they normally struggle through.”

So, according to the enlightened perspective of Glenn Beck, if you disagree with his ideas, then you’re an idiot? And what if he’s wrong in his perspective? The problem with Beck is that he some how really believes that he is an equal to men the likes of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Beck, for all of his desires to be on equal footing with these men, has exactly three things in common with the Founding Fathers, he’s white; he’s a man; and he’s wealthy. That’s it.

In his book, Beck reprints and then praises Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Beck specifically highlights in yellow the phrase “ten dollars for each person”:

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

“That’s right,” Beck claims, “the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants — including that they abide by our laws.” [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]

Glenn, the founders weren’t imposing an immigration fee on people immigrating to America, they were attempting to collect an import tax on slaves. This is not rocket science. In fact Glenn, according to the “father of the Constitution”, James Madison, in his notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman — who supported the 1808 clause and other efforts by the South to protect slavery in the Constitution — recognized that the $10 tax limit that Beck highlighted prevented Congress from taxing the slave trade out of existence. According to Madison, Sherman “observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.”

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade? Probably not. Is he just an idiot? Well, when you start quoting sections of the Constitution that were used to protect the importation of slavery, in an attempt to attack immigrants to our country, then yes, you’re an idiot.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on October 3, 2009 in Immigration

 

Tags: ,

500,000 Attend Washington Tea Party?

glen_beck

Glenn “Joseph McCarthy” Beck, our nation’s stalwart defender against godless communism, has brashly declared that “really conservative” estimates of the recent completely spontaneous tea party march on Washington are around 500,000. Beck however claimed on “Fox and Friends” that it was really between one and two million, based on photos, and by an independent estimate made by a university, the name of which he couldn’t remember.

Others, Rush, Hannity, et al., have claimed it was larger than the crowd that gathered for President Obama’s Inauguration in January.

Official crowd estimates place the total number of attendees at somewhere between 60,000 to 75,000; while estimates for the inauguration were between 1.8 million to 2.5 million. Let’s see? 1.8 million is slightly more than 75,000; so, no Rush, Hannity, et al., your “completely spontaneous” tea party crowd was not only not larger; it wasn’t even close.

In fact, it was smaller than a lot of marches – or crowds – which have gathered in D.C. Here are only ten:

President Obama’s Inauguration = est. 1.8 million

The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, Nov 1969 = est. 500,000

Vietnam War Out Now Rally, Apr 1971 = est. 500,000

Million Man March, Apr 1993 = est. 400,000

The March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation, Apr 1993 = est. 300,000

The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom took place, during which MLK gave his “I Have Dream” speech, Aug 1963 = est. 250,000

Solidarity Day March, Sep 1981 = est. 260,000

The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, Oct 1969 = est. 200,000

Kent State/Cambodia Incursion March, May 1970 = est. 100,000

March for Life, Jan 1973 = est. 100,000

Basically, Beck and company not only exaggerated, but greatly exaggerated, the number of marchers, in fact they grossly inflated the numbers. Why would they do that? For one very good, very large, political reason; so their own power would seem greater.

Truth is they got fewer numbers for their “completely spontaneous” march than they did for tea party day back in April. Beck, Rush, Hannity et al., are going to have to realize – as will their sponsors – that their day has passed. After months of promoting his 9-12 march on Washington, with the unabashed help of Fox News and all of his conservative buddies they can only marshal 70,000 marchers.

70,000 divided by 12 million listeners = .005 multiplied by 100 = 5%. The conservative propaganda machine could only get .5% of its listeners to respond.

70,000 divided by let’s say 60 million Republicans = .001 multiplied by 100 = .1% of all Republicans.

70,000 divided by 169 million registered voters = .0004 multiplied by 100 = .04 % of all registered voters

Your march wasn’t spontaneous.

Your march wasn’t grass roots organized.

Your march wasn’t successful.

No one is hiding in their closets in fear of the tea bag grass roots movement. At best Mr. Beck’s groupies are the extreme right wing fringe. They’re numbers don’t prove substantial political power, their numbers prove they’re inconsequential.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 20, 2009 in Lunatics, Politics, Right Wing Radio

 

Tags: , ,

Service is the first step towards fascism?

limbaugh-5

GOP spokes mouth Rush Limbaugh exclaimed on 9-11 that, “Community service is the first step toward fascism.”

Really Rush?

Community service is the first step towards Fascism?

Do you have some kind of historical basis for this assumption? Any kind of historical basis?

No? Well, what a surprise. Perhaps your buddy Glenn Beck can have a professor at the University of I Can’t Remember find something to base your comments on.

I don’t think you’ll ever find any kind of historical basis though. But, who knows? Perhaps somewhere in that America you and your Ditto-heads seem to want to go back too. Which America is that by the way?

The America where we have only white Presidents?

The America where the CIA illegally tortures prisoners?

The America where the Executive Branch lies to the Legislative Branch?

The America where a Republican Presidential Candidate say it’s OK to wiretap houses of worship?

But we digress.

So, community service is the first step towards fascism. Well, then the Boy Scouts of America must be what? The United State’s version of the Hitler Youth? After all one of the last things you do in order to gain the rank of Eagle is to perform what? Oh yeah, community service.

HitlerYouthBoyWithFlag

boyscouts

Yep, looks like Rush might be right, it does appear that National Service is indeed the first step to fascism…

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 17, 2009 in Lunatics, Right Wing Radio

 

Tags: , , ,

Is Associate Justice Samuel Alito a Racist?

sam alito

Following his nomination by President George W. Bush to the post of Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor, Judge Samuel Alito’s membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) was raised.

So he belonged to an organization at Princeton, what’s the big deal?

Well, normally membership to organizations might not mean anything, but what if a future member of the United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, one of nine lifetime appointments, was to have belonged to an organization which had as its expressed goals the limiting of admissions of women and minorities to a college or university?

Under today’s standards for choosing members of the Supreme Court as outlined by Rush, Hannity, Beck, et al, Justice Alito’s membership in such an organization would have been seen as “overtly racist” and as a certain “disqualification”.

Using the standards of R, H, B et al, we would be forced to make the following comparison: “What if a Latina nominated to the Supreme Court had belonged to an organization which stated as one of its founding principles the exclusion of men and especially white men from a college campus?

“We would have to conclude that such a membership was racist, and that she should be excluded from serving on the highest court in the land; that she should be excluded from being rewarded with one of only nine lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court”.

But what if that Associate Justice had forgotten about his membership in this nefarious organization? Or at the very least claimed to have forgotten? When questioned by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) about his involvement, his membership, in CAP Alito claimed to have no memory of being a member of the group. It was pointed out however, that in his 1985 ‘Personal Qualifications Statement’ when applying to be an Assistant Attorney General, he listed his membership in CAP as a qualification.

So, a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court claims on an application in 1985 to belong to a campus organization, but 20 years later says he can’t remember belonging to the group? It can only be concluded that Mr. Alito lied. He either lied when he applied to be an Assistant Attorney General, or he lied under oath during his confirmation hearing when he claimed he couldn’t remember belonging to CAP.

Seems to me that a nominee to the United States Supreme Court not only appears to have belonged to a racist, sexist organization while attending law school, but that he also lied about his membership in the same organization.

Under the newly constitued rules for determining a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, the rules as imposed by the esteemed legal team of Rush, Hannity, Beck et al, it would appear that Associate Justice Samuel Alito is not only a racist, but also a liar. Either of which, or both of which, would certainly be a disqualification.

You can’t have it all one way fellas. A standard of qualification is a standard. You can’t have your judical cake and eat it too.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 30, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , ,

Is Judge Sotomayor a Racist?

Tuesday, President Barack Obama made history – once again – when he nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Almost immediately, numerous right-wing radio talk hosts began smearing Judge Sotomayor as a racist and a bigot.

These hosts have been citing remarks Judge Sotomayor made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in 2002, when she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Titular head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh claimed Sotomayor is a “reverse racist”; radio host Mark Levin called her a “bigot”; and Glenn Beck claimed Sotomayor made “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard. … She sure sounds like a racist.”

Well, if Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine and Glenn Beck said it then it must be true.

Of course what the right-wing doesn’t do is say under what circumstances Judge Sotomayor made her allegedly racists statement.

Judge Sotomayor was specifically referring to the importance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases. Something a woman, and especially a woman of color, might have just a little more practical knowledge about than a white male.

So, if Judge Sotomayor is a racists for daring to suggest that a Latina might be better qualified than a white male regarding race and sex discrimination cases, then what about Justice Clarence Thomas’ comments made during his Senate confirmation hearings responding to the question of why he “want[ed] this job,” Thomas responded, “I believe … that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does.”

How can Justice Thomas “bring something different to the Court”? Is his educational background significantly different than the other Justices? No. What about his legal or judicial background, is it significantly different from the other Justices? No. So the difference must be, maybe, his race?

In making such a statement, according to the standards put in place by Rush, Levine and Beck, Justice Clarence Thomas must be a racist and a bigot.

During Tuesday’s broadcast of his show, Limbaugh said of Sotomayor: “So here you have a racist. You might — you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone, because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power.  Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one.”

So, according to Rush, not only is Judge Sotomayor a racist, but President Obama is a racist as well?

Rush continued his theorizing, “In another example of her radical judicial philosophy, Sonia Sotomayor stated in a 2002 speech at Berkeley that she believes it’s appropriate for a judge to consider, quote, ‘their experiences as women and people of color’ — reverse racism. She’s a minority. Only she can understand the horrible trials and tribulations minorities have gone through, and the courts are the places where their grievances are redressed — and they’re not. The court is where the law is dealt with.

“In the same speech, Sonia Sotomayor went on to say, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experience, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ If that’s not a racist statement, I don’t know what is — reverse racist or whatever.

During his Tuesday radio show broadcast, Levin claimed of “so-called moderate” Democratic senators voting on Sotomayor: “These people  need to understand that if they vote to confirm a radical leftist — and I  will now say what I actually believe — who is a bigot — that’s right, I  said it — then they need to pay a political price for this.”

Levin later said, “Let me defend my position that I believe this nominee is bigoted.” He continued, “Sonia Sotomayor gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge, quote, ‘may and will make a difference in our judging.’ She said, quote, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Now I’m sure they’ll spin it. I’m sure they’ll attack those of us who see something like this as a red flag, but there is no way — there is no way you can justify a statement like that other than a bigoted statement. That’s not based on somebody’s content or character, as Martin Luther King would say. That’s based on a generalized statement about race and ethnicity. That statement alone — that statement alone should disqualify her. Period.”

So, would Mr. Levine also say that based on his “generalized statement about race and ethnicity” that Justice Clarence Thomas, based upon “that statement alone – that statement alone should disqualify him. Period?”

On Tuesday’s edition of his Fox “News” program, Glenn Beck said Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comments “smacks of racism” and is “one of the most outrageous racist remarks I’ve heard.” Beck later claimed, “I don’t like the charges of, ‘Oh, you’re a racist. They’re a racist.’ Very few people are racist.

“There are racists and they’re bad people. And — but it’s — most Americans are good, just decent people, and I hate the charges and cries of racism. But when I hear this — I mean, gee. She sure sounds like a racist here.”

Would Beck ascribe the same standard to Clarence Thomas? If he were to listen to Justice Thomas’ statement would he say, “But when I hear this — I mean, gee. He sure sounds like a racist here?”

So, is Judge Sotomayor a racist as Limbaugh, Levine and Beck claim she is?

Well, first, considering the source; and second, looking at what was said in context, and from the position of thinking adult; The only possible answer is no she is not a racist, anymore than Justice Clarence Thomas is a racist, and the conservatives are extremely hard pressed to oppose her if this is their best shot.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 28, 2009 in Politics, Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , , ,

Tea Parties Demonstrate Right’s Impotence

According to America’s Truth Detector, the de facto leader of the Republican Tea Party (GOTP), Rush Limbaugh, “There were 800 tea parties, and I think some outfit has calculated based on the estimates from law enforcement officials and others on all the sites, something like 189,000 Americans showed up yesterday total for all the tea parties.” 

Let’s do a little math. Rush claims to have 20 million listeners; so, 189,000 divided by 20 million = 0.009 multiplied by 100 = 0.945 percent of his so-called listening audience.

According to most media outlets, Rush is heard on 600 radio stations nation wide with some 14 million listeners. So, 189,000 divided by 14 million = 0.013 multiplied by 100 = 1.35 percent of his listeners.

In 2004 there were 55 million registered Republicans; 189,000 divided by 55 million = 0.003 multiplied by 100 = 0.34 percent of total Republicans.

According to Talkers Magazine, Sean Hannity has about 13 million listeners. 189,000 divided by 13 million = 0.014 multiplied by 100 = 1.45 percent of his listeners.

Laura Ingraham is estimated to have around 5 million listeners. 189,000 divided by 5 million = 0.037 multiplied by 100 = 3.78 percent of her total listeners.

Michael Savage has approximately 8 million listeners. 189,000 divided by 8 million = 0.023 multiplied by 100 = 2.36 percent of total listeners.

Glenn Beck has approximately 4 million listeners. 189,000 divided by 4 million = 0.047 multiplied by 100 = 4.72 percent of total listeners.

So, what does this mean?

It means that Rush, Hannity, Beck, O’Reilly, FOX PAC, Ingraham, Boortz, Savage, Crowley, et al., do not have near the amount of political power, nor political clout that they, or the Democrats think they have. This was the best they could do? This is all they could muster? Best case 4.72 percent of Glenn Beck’s total listeners? The GOTP couldn’t get more then 0.34 percent of its total numbers to come out? 189,000 disgruntled voters out of 169 million registered voters in the United States? 0.11 percent of all the registered voters in the whole country turned out?

If this is the best they can do, then the conservative movement in America and especially the Republican Tea Party has had its day. It appears that Ronald Reagan truly was the GOP’s high water mark. If I were a member of the Democratic Party leadership I would simply smile every time Rush, or Hannity, or any other member of the conservative media attacked me, and then I would turn to them and say, as Glenda said to the Witch of the West, “You have no power here, now be gone before someone drops a house on you too.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 20, 2009 in Right Wing Radio

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Tea Parties Responsible for Market Recovery?

Just when I was beginning to wonder how curious it was that six weeks into a market recovery no one on the right had given any credit to President Obama, especially after continuously laying the blame at his feet for its seemingly endless downward plunge for the past 3 months; remember when Hannity, on opening his FOX  PAC program on 6 Mar 09, said, “And our headline this Friday night: Welcome to Day Number 46 of Obama’s Bear Market. Now, that’s what some news organizations are calling it tonight as the Dow Jones industrial average actually finished up about 30 points today at the end of a disastrous week.” And he concluded, “According to Bloomberg News, the Dow has now dropped faster during the first six weeks of the Obama administration than any other administration in at least 90 years. But is that a surprise after weeks of talking down the economy?”

Well today opening her FOX PAC program Bulls and Bears hostess Brenda Buttner cleared up what is responsible for the upturn when she said, Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street’s sure partying, up six weeks in a row. The bulls came out about the same time these guys started to shout, saying no to big government, big taxes, and big bailouts. Will that keep investors saying yes to stocks?” Buttner finished, “After months on its back, the market comes back the same time Americans fight back against big government. Is that a coincidence?”

Now we all know why conservatives couldn’t give any credit to the President. They’ve been waiting for anything, and I do mean anything, else to explain it. It was the Tea Parties!

The next phase of this will occur on Monday, when it will begin with Rush, and then Hannity, Ingraham, O’Rielly, Beck, when they’ll all begin to echo that the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – as the Tea Parties were described by FOX PAC commentator Geraldo Rivera Thursday – are what’s really responsible for the new found confidence in the stock market.  It will all become crystal clear. The economy couldn’t possibly be responding positively to anything a democrat liberal could have done! It can only respond negatively to democrat efforts. If it is going to move upwards, it can only do so due to something happening on the conservative side. The Tea Parties! Aha! They spontaneously began on the GOP side!

Pay attention now as I describe how the conservative talk jocks will try to validate this claim: A group of village idiot types – we’ll call them Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – are attempting to claim that “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – we’ll call them Tea Parties – are responsible for the stock market recovering.

Sir Bedevere – aka Rush – arrives on the scene, and asks them why they’re claiming this.

The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – first say that credit couldn’t possibly be given to anyone with the middle name Hussein, but then grudgingly have to admit he didn’t give himself the name.

The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – then make some more outrageous claims (Hannity says that the economy couldn’t be rebounding from anything that someone who palls around with terrorists could have done; while O’Reilly claims that there’s no doubt attending a church of a left wing extremist would definitely cancel out anything positive a democrat president could do; and then Beck shouts that he turned him into a newt – though he later ‘got better’).

Sir Bedevere – aka Rush – then talks the village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – through the ‘logic’ for checking that it – “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – you remember, the  Tea Parties – are responsible for the stock market recovering – and after some false turns and lots of dim stares, they all come to the following basic conclusions.

First, “Groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – the Tea Parties – burn (actually they combust). This one is fair enough, though the idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – suggest trying to actually burn the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – as way of testing this.

Second, Wood Burns. Hence “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – or Tea Parties – are made of wood. How do you check that “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea parties – are made of wood? Try building a bridge out of it, Hannity suggests – but Bedevere – aka Rush – points out that you can also make bridges from stone.

Third, Wood Floats. Bedevere – aka Rush – gently leads them to this point, and asks them if they know anything else that floats.

Fourth, Ducks Float. The village idiot types – Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly – actually have a lot of trouble thinking of something else that floats – Beck shouts that really small pebbles float! But it is Arthur (Buttner), who has just arrived on the scene, who says: ‘A Duck!’ (Stunned amazement and dramatic music.)

Therefore… The logic goes: that if “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – weigh the same as a duck, then they’re responsible for the stock market recovering, and they can burn the president. So they put the “groups that have aspects of spontaneity” – Tea Parties – on a set of scales with a duck, and wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles, they weigh the same

At this point we cut to a commercial: Scene opens with an egg being held over a red hot frying pan, cue voice over: “This is your brain.”

Egg is broken and dropped into red hot frying pan begins to fry, cue voice over, “This is your brain on conservative talk radio; any questions?”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 19, 2009 in Economics

 

Tags: , , , , , ,