Posts Tagged ‘Glenn Beck’

Is Park51 Community Center being funded by News Corp Associates and Military Industrial Complex?

Other than calling it the “ground zero mosque,” the film draws some valid connections and asks a great question. Why would groups promoting these trumped-up wars now fund a peaceful Muslim community center? Actually, the answer might simply be that they all have a guilty conscience.  Though with the amount of blood money we are talking, they should build a community center in every city in the United States.

Glenn Beck’s False Flag

Glenn Beck’s False Flag

I have spent some time critiquing Glenn Beck.  His lapses in judgment.   His lapses in logic.  His lapses in humanity.  His lapses in balance.  His lapses in justice.  What I haven’t said often enough is that he has some ideas that are almost right on target.  Why have I not said this?  Is it my lack of balance? My left leaning bias? Do I not want to give ammunition to the far right?  Well, yes and no.  It really boils down to corporatism. But what is it?  My point of view on corporatism is that it is not a right or left issue, it is about the big swallowing the small. So Glenn is half right. And, no, it is not because he is half-wit, quite the contrary.  He knows it is big uncontrolled government not regulating big uncontrolled business that is the problem, but he also knows that on his network, and in his tax bracket, that he is best off not to mention the second half of the equation. He also knows, as do we all, that the solutions, on both sides are the pharmacon of civilization, both the poison and the cure.  The right dosage in the right set-and-setting for the pharmacon is all important.

Now I love a conspiracy just as much as Glenn Beck does, though I tend to see them from the opposite side of the aisle, I love them nonetheless.  I love the pull of the Elmer Gantry’s of the world. I love to look toward whatever and however the morning and the evening star might save us, but in the end as I am brought down the aisle to be saved with the crowd, I am usually more comfortable questioning the savior than blindly following them over the cliff of good intentions.

You may say that I am cynical thinking that every potential solution sounds like a Just So story to be doubted, but we all want to believe, and to do so unquestioningly means we will be sucked into the collective as quickly as we can be assimilated. If you have The Answer, then you are not only to be doubted, but you must be put to the utmost public scrutiny.  To do less is suicide; mentally, physically and spiritually.

The pull of corporatism as defined by the left and the right is strong.  It is stronger than the left wants to hear.  Big business requires big government to both foster it and control it.  Everyone wants to name the disease; we know the symptoms, but not the cause.  Everyone appears to think that naming is understanding and wants to give a prescription to the now named disease, but no one knows the dosage for the pharmacon, nor the proper set-and-setting.   God help us. If you ask those in the middle of road, they’ll tell you it’s all in your head.  While those in the wings will point at each other saying just look at what has been done. We are poisoned or we are cured.  So go ahead and appeal to common sense, but whose common sense?

So how is it that Glenn Beck flies a false flag?  It is easy to see that  for twice the money (to cover his losses), Glenn Beck could have an epiphany, flip the script and move to MSNBC to harangue on the abuses of big business.  Explaining the epiphany alone could carry him a few seasons.  He is a diversion of the first order.  He will tell his new (and many of the old) listeners just what they expected all along. They want to believe. Until the big tent burns and Sister Sarah dies, then he will join the more cynical among us in tears as he carries out the body.  This time the tears may be real.

In my email: Subject: Does Glenn Beck Speak for You? July 6, 2010 Dear Friend,

For more than three hours on radio and one hour on Fox News every weekday, Glenn Beck offers his dwindling audience a toxic stew of conspiracy theories, provably false claims, violent rhetoric and unfair accusations.

Here at Media Matters for America, we devote time and effort every day to cataloguing, exposing and debunking Glenn Beck’s lies so that his dangerous effect on our national debate doesn’t go unchallenged. You can help us in this important fight and spread the message where you live. With your donation, we’ll send you our new “Glenn Beck Doesn’t Speak for Me” bumper sticker.

Donate today and say: Glenn Beck Doesn’t Speak for Me.

Here are just a few of the low points of Becks past year and a half:

  • Hijacking the civil rights movement and saying he is going to “reclaim” it.
  • Attempting to rescue the legacy of Joe McCarthy and kicking off his own hunt for “communists” in government.
  • Attacking President Obama as a “racist” who has “a real problem with white people.”
  • Going after Obama’s family, including his daughter Malia.
  • Fearmongering in ways that help shady advertisers sell their products.
  • Knitting issues like climate change, net neutrality and immigration into vast socialist or criminal conspiracies.

While his ratings are shrinking, Beck still commands a platform that allows him to misinform hundreds of thousands of people. Viewers who look to Glenn Beck as a reliable source are coming away with a false and terrifying impression of the world. And with Beck’s tone infecting other right-wing pundits and putting outlandish political extremism into mainstream debate, Beck’s heated, hateful rhetoric isn’t just his problem — it’s ours.

Enough’s enough. It’s time to push back. You can be part of the fight to hold Beck accountable.

Donate today and say: Glenn Beck Doesn’t Speak for Me.

For a donation of $10 or more, we’ll send you one of our new “Glenn Beck Doesn’t Speak for Me” bumper stickers. You can let your friends and neighbors know that you stand against the rage, lunacy and outright lies of Glenn Beck.

Thank you for your support.

Ari Rabin-Havt
Media Matters for America

© 2010 Media Matters for America
455 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20001

Beck Finally Addresses Oil Spill… (Reposted from The Glenn Beck Review)

Beck Finally Addresses Oil Spill…

The Glenn Beck Review | June 15, 2010 at 10:35 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL:     Note the new Glenn Beck Review

so he can race bait the President…again!

This is another press release from Media Matters.

Glenn Beck spent most of his Fox show on 6/14 talking about the President’s remarks toward BP CEO, Hayward. Beck: “[T]here seems to be a little profiling going on here” that “sounds like racism.

Would I mislead people?

On his Fox News show, Beck again cropped Obama’s 1995 comments to claim they sounded “an awful lot like profiling” and reiterated his suggestion that the reason Obama did not want to meet with Hayward is because “he’s a white CEO” and “white CEOs, they don’t like to — they don’t want to pay their tax dollars and have those tax dollars go to inner-city kids.

Beck: What is it that Barack Obama knows that he won’t even bother to meet with the guy to hear him out? Well, until, you know, he changed his mind a couple of days later. What is it that the dictator of Iran, the crazy guy in Iran has in the credibility department that the CEO of BP doesn’t have? What is it? Tell me. I’d like to know. Does the fact the BP CEO is a capitalist — does that — is that what does it? You know, when I meet with those capitalists — he’s a white CEO. Maybe that’s it. He’s a white CEO. White CEOs — I don’t know if you know this — but white CEOs, they don’t like to — they don’t want to pay their tax dollars and have those tax dollars go to inner-city kids.


Obama: And I really want to emphasize the word responsibility. I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school —

Beck: I know. Man, all those white executives, what racists they are. They’re all alike, you know. Oh, they just hate those inner-city kids. Wow. Inner-city kids — that’s not code language, is it? And gee, all those white executives that don’t want to pay their taxes, have to go to — that sounds an awful lot like profiling…It’s almost like he’s generalizing, profiling, and stereotyping.

In that August, 1995 interview with Bill Thompson, who interviews authors for his Eye on Books series:

MM: Obama discussed what he had learned in writing Dreams from my Father, his 1995 memoir, and he also addressed issues of race in America. When Obama was asked whether the next generation will also have to deal with the same racial issues, he replied that it “depends on what we do and whether we take some mutual responsibility for bridging the divisions that exist right now.” Obama continued: “And I really want to emphasize the word ‘responsibility.’ I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school or you’re an inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now [emphasis added].

From the whole interview Beck quoted out of context with what Beck aired in bold:

Bill Thompson

Bill Thompson

Thompson: What was the most difficult part of the book to write?

Obama: I think what was toughest was writing honestly and truthfully about the suspicions and hurts and failings of the people closest to me, and writing about those same failings and disappointments and blind spots in myself. I think whenever we talk about race there are all kinds of issues that we’d like to skirt. You know, I tell the story — just to take one of the clearest examples — of my grandmother, who loves me dearly and has made all kinds of sacrifices on my behalf, expressing at one point when I was a teenager her fear of black men on the streets. And, you know, to discuss that honestly and to discuss how that felt, to discuss how my grandmother felt, and then to be able to arrive at some sort of peace with that, some greater understanding and some forgiveness, I think was probably the most difficult part of writing it.

Thompson: Were there times when you felt like just backing away from the whole thing and saying, “Oh, I don’t think I can go through with this”?

Obama: Right. Well, certainly, I think there’s an impulse among all of us to shy away from these issues. There’s a certain race weariness that confronts the country, precisely because the questions are so deeply embedded and the solutions are going to require so much investment of time, energy, and money. And so I share that reluctance sometimes to explore these issues.

I think what kept me going is the recognition that we can’t solve these problems by ignoring them or pretending that they don’t exist. And one of the things that strikes me and the country right now is our tendency to either pretend that racial conflict does not exist, that racial division and hatred does not exist, and to pretend that we live in a color-blind society — I think sometimes members of the Supreme Court, the current Supreme Court, take that line — or to say that race is everything, that there’s no possibility of common ground between black and white.

And I think the truth of the matter is that — and hopefully what people will get out of the book — is some sense that although the lives of blacks and whites in this country are different, although our historical experiences are different, my family is an example — and, hopefully, I am an example — of the possibility of arriving at some common ground and that we do share values and principles around which we can organize and make for a better life.


Thompson: I’m wondering if the ethnically mixed couple of today, if when their child is 34 years old, if they’ll find it any easier to deal with these issues then than you have found it now?

Obama: That’s an interesting question. I’m not sure. I think in some ways there’s less novelty to the idea of mixed couples. They’re not seen as lurid or perverse in ways that I think they were 30 years ago. I think that this country is inevitably going to be undergoing changes simply due to demographics. I think that there’s been a lot of talk about the “browning of America” —

Thompson: I was just going to use that same phrase.

Obama: Right. And I think that is going to be happening, and we can’t ignore it. I think whether or not my children or your children will have to struggle with these same issues depends on what we do and whether we take some mutual responsibility for bridging the divisions that exist right now. And I really want to emphasize the word “responsibility.”

I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school or you are a inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now. [Emphasis added]

Beck is clearly trying to fuel those kinds of divisions! Later in his show, Beck told his audience, “If I get out of control and start leveling baseless charges that can’t be backed up, guess what happens? I’m fired. I’m out of a job.

Got it? Race baiting? That’s OK (except for dozens of sponsors that will no longer advertise during his show). Lying? That’s OK. Quoting people out of context to distort the meaning of their words? That’s OK.  Hypocrisy? That’s OK. Leveling baseless charges that he can’t back up? That’s not OK? Riiiiight!

As if Rupert Murdoch cares what Beck says!


Post a Comment

All Comments Approved

Unlike Glenn Beck’s Blog, Free Speech is Practiced Here


Get Involved for 10 Minutes

Share this URL

Note the new Glenn Beck Review

Thank you

Add a comment to this post

The Glenn Beck Review is back up and here:

Are Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Thomas Sowell taking the U.S. down a Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Are Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Thomas Sowell  taking the U.S. down a Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

By Ishtarmuz  Posted 06/26/10

In rebuttal to:  Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

Not this guy: View Enlarged Image Thomas Sowell

Adolf Hitler built up the Nazi movement in the 1920s by activating people who did not normally pay much attention to politics by his loud emotional appeals to patriotism (the fatherland), scapegoats, and all manner of fallacies in the manner of Glenn Beck and Thomas Sowell.

The value of people who blindly follow the political base of the tea party, like the Nazi party, is that  they are particularly susceptible to Hitlerian rhetoric and have far less basis for questioning Glenn Beck’s or Thomas Sowell’s assumptions which lead to their unwarranted conclusions.

Useful idiots” was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin, but really was invented by the McCarthyites, to describe liberal thinkers that considered socialism, but were painted as red sympathizers of  the Soviet Union. This is much like what Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Thomas Sowell do today in regard to supporters of the Barack Obama administration.

Put differently, the tea party movement needs to disinform citizens if it is to thrive, or ultimately even survive.

In our times, the tea party movement is attempting to dismantle the protections of the citizens from corporate greed, piece by piece, before our very eyes. This by the very people that claim to love those freedoms most, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The tea party numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with their half baked ideas, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond any particular half baked idea .

Many Presidents from Jefferson on down have warned the nation of the power of corporations taking away the rights of individuals. Today the multinational corporations have more power than nations and the President has the authority to bargain with nations. So just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to make a deal with a corporation? I don’t know, but in the BP incident I would have preferred the President to have asked the solicitor general to seize BP’s assets and put it into receivership until the crisis had passed, rather than allowing BP to voluntarily put aside any amount of money to be administered by an independent third party.  The BP damage is as much an attack as the terrorists and we thought nothing of freezing the assets of suspected terrorist around the world without due process.

The  $20 billion voluntary fund provided by BP to compensate people is in no way an abrogation of their due process, but rather it is BP’s wise decision to avoid due process where they risked a lot more.

Many people think this issue is simply whether BP’s oil gusher has done damage to those who ought to be compensated. If that was the case then they could deny blame in court and tie up any pay out for years. No, it is much more than just a legal haggling over such unconscionable minutia.

When the tea party say that our government is supposed to be “a government of laws and not of men ” and they speak of the rule of law and tort reform, they are really talking about limiting the rights of the individual and increasing those of the corporation by the same pettifogging they use on all other issues.  Sadly this is the exact twisted process that our legal system has gone down for years. Law meant to protect people have come to protect corporations.

If our laws and our institutions determine what we ought to do, according to the tea party, then like the laws made in Nazi Germany should we sterilize imbeciles and homosexuals if such a law was passed? Or should we take up arms against such a government as the second amendment clearly was intended to allow?

The tea party says that the Constitution states that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without “due process of law,” but fail to mention that such a right was used to justify slave ownership and deny women property rights. When a man has a gun in his hand, I will take it, and he should be thankful that I did not lawfully blow his head off.

BP has agreed to the confiscation of the gun pointed at the head of the American people, this means they have agreed for us to not blow their head off, a wise move.

With vastly expanded rhetoric of the tea party available at the discretion of  each day’s events,  if accepted, we will see private individuals forced into accepting the imposition of a world of robber barons again, a power removed from the Constitution long ago.

If you believe that the end justifies the means, then you believe in the values of the tea party, not the Constitution.

Rules for Reactionaries: Lie, distort, misinform…. (reposted from The Glenn Beck Review)

Rules for Reactionaries: Lie, distort, misinform….

The Glenn Beck Review | Monday, June 7th, 2010 at 11:27 am| categories: Glenn BeckRules for RadicalsSaul Alinsky, means and ends,means justifies the ends.| URL: Note that the Glenn Beck Review is back and here.

How Glenn Beck Undermines His Own Narrative

Regular viewers of the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News know that Beck often refers to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, A Pragmatic Primerfor Realistic Radicals.

Beck is frequently claiming that for Alinsky, “The ends justifies the means.” That’s it; that is what Beck claims Alinsky believed on the subject of means and ends.

Trust me; I never get the facts wrong

Regular readers of The Review will not be surprised that the reality of the matter varies widely from Beck’s short hand claim. Supporters ofGlenn Beck may be surprised that Alinsky devoted an entire 24 page chapter to the subject of means and ends with 11 rules to follow.

Alinsky’s 11 Rules Pertaining to Means and Ends

  1. Ones concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.
  2. The judgment of the ethics of means and ends is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
  3. In war the end justifies almost any means.
  4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
  5. The concern with ethics increases with the number of mean available and vice-versa.
  6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
  7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
  8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
  9. Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
  10. You can do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
  11. Goals must be phased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

Alinsky ends the chapter on means and ends by noting that they “are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, “Does the End justify the Means?” but always has been “Does this particular end justify this particular means?”

On Beck’s Distortion of Alinsky

It’s clear to regular readers of The Review that it is not real important for Beck to get it right, where “it” is the subject he’s talking about at any time. However, when Beck distorts “it” in such a way that his distortion can be easily proven such as it is here with his claim about what Alinsky wrote about means and ends, he only serves to leave himself open to the obvious criticism: Glenn Beck lies, distorts, misrepresents, quotes out of context, etc. for purposes of propaganda rather than to enlighten or inform his audience.

The Glenn Beck Show is not a blend of information and entertainment as he claims; it is a blend of misinformation and entertainment where his viewers are busy checking into people Beck slings mud at instead of fact checking any of Beck’s many false assertions. Mr. Beck; the table has turned.

Please Help Spread the Word:

Share this URL

Note the new Glenn Beck Review

Thank you


Post a Comment

All Comments Approved

Unlike Glenn Beck’s Blog, Free Speech is Practiced Here

This entry was posted on Monday, June 7th, 2010 at 11:27 am and is filed under Glenn BeckRules for RadicalsSaul Alinskymeans and ends,means justifies the ends. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

No need to wonder what has happened to the original site, The Glenn Beck Review has a new site here.

What is Glenn Beck’s Overton Window? (reposted from The Glenn Beck Review)

What is Glenn Beck’s Overton Window?

The Political Theory, Not the Book

The Overton Window is not just the name of Glenn Beck‘s new novel; he took that title from a political theory of Joseph Overton, so named posthumously by Overton’s colleagues at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Joseph Overton

Overton’s tremendous contributions to the Mackinac Center and the free-market movement were tragically cut  with his  death on June 30, 2003, in an airplane crash. For Beck he was “a brilliant public policy strategist and ardent free-marketer.

In a special opinion piece to AOL News (the caption to the picture above is a link to it), Beck explains what the Overton Window is and why you should care. In that piece Beck explains Overton’s observation that “when public policies in a given area (education, health care) are arranged from freest to least free, only a relatively narrow window of options will be considered politically acceptable.”

Below is a depiction of Overton’s Window as it applies to energy policy:

The Overton Window

The window itself is the darker shade of blue that moves up or down not based usually upon the whims or strategies of politicians but rather “policy change follows political change, which itself follows social change. The most durable policy changes are those that are undergirded by strong social movements.” [Emphasis added] As Beck explains it, “the window will gradually move over time based on a variety of factors, including truth, facts, arguments, big events and misinformation, to name a few.” The Review has demonstrated repeatedly that Beck’s mission is to move that window using misinformation.

Clearly the Civil Rights Movement moved Overton’s Window down the scale toward greater government involvement with the passing of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prevents businesses from discriminating on the basis of race.

Beck argues in his opinion piece that:

If Obama continues to push, he’ll experience what’s called Overton’s revenge. It happened during America’s banning of alcohol through prohibition in the 1920s. People like to drink, and they especially liked to drink during the Great Depression. Prohibition was finally overturned in 1933. Government overshot the window, and the people responded.

An example of one way Beck misinforms comes right from the opinion piece. Beck asks, “Did Obama overshoot the Overton Window with health care? With cap and trade? With bailouts? Only time will tell.” Bailouts? When Obama voted for the TARP bailout, he was a senator. George Bush didn’t have to worry about overshooting the window; he was a lame duck president then. At the time, Glenn Beck supported TARP!

The Macinac Center explains:

Lawmakers who support policies outside the window are one of two kinds — true leaders who have the rare ability to shift the window by themselves, or politicians who risk electoral defeat because they are perceived as out of touch. This explains why key lawmakers in 2009 and 2010 were reluctant to support a massive federal health care bill seen as unpopular with the people. Officeholders knew a vote outside the window would subject them to the political Furies, as in fact it has.

The Overton Window doesn’t describe everything, but it describes one big thing: Politicians will rarely support whatever policy they choose whenever they choose; rather, they will do what they feel they can do without risking electoral defeat, given the current political environment shaped by ideas, social movements and societal sensibilities.

Questions from The Review are: 1) Is President Obama one of those “true leaders” who can move the window down by the force of his charisma and communication skill, 2) Are the social movements  supporting  government policies away from fossil fuels toward sustainable energy sources strong and influential enough to counter balance the reactionary Tea Party and Glenn Beck’s reactionary push to “refound America?”

Two examples of the former are Repower America:

and the Apollo Alliance, the group that helped write the stimulus bill:

The United States and indeed the world are faced with a choice. Do we continue along the path of the status quo of global warming, oil spills, oil addiction and declining petroleum resources (leading to energy crises); or are we going to make a push toward sustainable energy development? China is moving in both directions; will the United States be left behind?

Freedom is not the issue. No American had their freedom appreciably diminished when the government spent billions during the Cold War to develop weapons. (The taxes that support government spending are rarely an issue for the right when it comes to national security.) Part of that investment went toward the development of integrated circuitry and microprocessing. That same investment needs to drive the transition toward a post fossil fuel world that the Pentagon recognizes as essential to American security.

Glenn Beck and others on the right have made their choice. This November voters in the United States will make theirs. Between now and then, this choice is bound to be articulated clearly by the President and loudly by Glenn Beck. The direction Overton’s Window moves will be decided largely by you.


Post a Comment

All Comments Approved

Unlike Glenn Beck’s Blog, Free Speech is Practiced Here


Get Involved for 10 Minutes

Share this URL

Note the new Glenn Beck Review

Thank you

Glenn Beck’s Road to Socialism (Reposted from Glenn Beck’s Review)

Glenn Beck’s Road to Socialism

Introducing Friedrich Hayek, a European!

On The Glenn Beck Show of 6/8/10, Beck introduced his audience to Friedrich A. Hayek, an Austrian born economist famous for his defense of classical liberalism and free market capitalism. This post will question Beck’s selection of Hayek to defend unbridled capitalism compared with 1) the centralized planning of a socialist economy and 2) the centralized regulating of American, progressive capitalism in the 20th Century.

First, a comment to address Beck’s two-day-running complaint about the cost of the 2010 census. Beck is questioning why this year’s census cost $10 billion more than it did in 2000. Beck fails to mention in this rant that he and others at Fox “News” discouraged viewers from filling out the census form at all or in Beck’s case filling it out incompletely. Why is it costing $10 billion more this year than 10 years ago? The digit Beck needs to use when pointing at who’s partially culpable in this increase in cost to the American tax payers is his thumb! Thanks to Beck and his ilk, more census workers  needed to be hired this year.

Next, to see Beck choose Friedrich Hayek as the voice of reason and free markets after WWII when many were critical of capitalism and looking for alternative ways to organize economic activities differently was surprising considering how often Beck bemoans the influences of European thinkers like Karl Marx–harped on often–and Friedrich Nietzsche, whom Beck mentioned once without further comment, on Americans.

Marx                 Nietzsche

Why did Beck embrace Hayek but not others? Because Beck agrees with Hayek’s “common sense” free market, anti-statist, economic philosophy. Once again, Beck’s principled stands aren’t so principled. It’s also worth noting here that the Framers of the Constitution were influenced by John Lock and Thomas Hobbes. Neither of them were American, but that doesn’t phase Beck when he’s raging against the poison of European thinkers (that he doesn’t agree with).

The book Beck set about to discuss yesterday was Hayek’s The Road to Surfdom.

Beck’s guest to discuss this book was Thomas E. Woods Jr of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Woods was the recipient of 2004 O.P. Alford III Prize for Libertarian Scholarship, so he’s not going to be a mainstream analyst of the economy or Hayek’s book.

The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is described on their website as “the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory.” Thus, it wasn’t surprising to hear Woods claim the following:

Woods: Economic cycles are because of regulation…Canada didn’t have a bank that failed [during the Great Depression]. States imposed single office rules on banks that lead to their failure. During the Great Depression 9,000 U.S. banks failed. Zero Canadian banks failed. Government promises stability, and the people go for this.

Once again, facts are cherry picked to make a point. The Canadian banks were very stable, but the rules Woods cited on the U.S. banks were from the states, not the federal government.

This really gets to the crux of Beck’s support, of why Beck has any followers, people willing to turn a blind eye toward his long record of deceit and his dishonorable hypocrisy. Beck claims that the Obama Administration is on the road to socialism, dependency on the state (welfare, unemployment, etc.) and surfdom.

For Beck there are two extremes, a black and white choice for America. On one hand is the (white) unbridled, unsaddled capitalism of the 19th Century before the “evil” progressives began the taming, bridling and saddling of the wild horse of laissez-faire capitalism promoted by Beck, Woods and Libertarians in general. That wild horse bucked in convulsions about every ten years of boom and busts throwing off riders who consequently are injured by homelessness, hunger and disease. It is a grey system, i.e., environmentally dangerous.

On the other hand there’s the road to socialism or surfdom to use Hayek’s term. Centrally planned, socialist economies are publically owned and become inefficient, uninspiring, protective of workers, providing full employment but otherwise stagnant and grey (environmentally dangerous). There’s no motivation to excel when wealth is not an option. Marx lacked a psychology in his writings and analysis, and thus he didn’t address motivations, ambition, desires, etc.  It’s no wonder then that Communist economies are in the trash can of history for the most past.

Those are the two extremes: Marxist Communism or Hayek’s wild, unbridled horse. However, socialism is not embraced in contemporary America, is not the Democratic or Obama’s agenda and is not the end game of most progressives. Laissez-faire capitalism is not the goal of mainstream Republicans like George Bush or Lindsey Graham. It is the goal of Beck (sometimes), Hayek and Libertarians: Black and white.

Liberals in the Administration of FDR did not create the minimal social safety net out of compassion or some moral imperative. Socialist candidate for President, Norman Thomas was seen as a threat by elites, and he polled 880,000 votes in 1932. FDR co-opted his supporters by adopting some of the socialist policies to prevent an eventual socialist take-over of the government.

Norman Thomas

If Libertarians and other reactionaries like Glenn Beck actually manage to reverse 100 years of progressive legislation protecting food, the environment, worker safety, working class people in general, the elderly and the poor from abject poverty, homelessness and starvation that charity cannot suffice to prevent in a country of 308 million people, the likelihood of a democratic socialist election in the U.S. would increase as would another enormous crash of the world economy. It is the minimalist government protection against the excesses of unbridled, unsaddled capitalism that is the road to socialism, not progressive, regulated capitalism.

Luckily, the lion’s share of the American people have no interest in reversing the political progress made over the last 100 years. The American people want some kind of middle course, some shade of grey, some regulation of banks and financial services, environmental protections to prevent future oil spills and minimize the ones that happen anyway, etc. That is good for economic freedom, for the captains of industry, and for the super rich like Glenn Beck.  It’s also good for those Beck would prefer to leave unprotected and forgotten by charitable organizations unable to help all those thrown off the wild horse of laissez-faire capitalism.

The question that needs to be answered is how to pay for the shade of grey, the amount of social protections provided and the massive military reach of world hegemony by the U.S. How do we pay for the guns and the butter?  That will have to wait for another post, but it’s worth mentioning one point that Beck always fails to mention when he speaks of his hero, Ronald Reagan. The national debt tripled during Reagan’s eight year regime. If you want a rounded out and balanced view of history, The Glenn Beck Show is not the place to get it.

In my email:Glenn Beck, Con Artist Date: 6/1/2010 from Alan Grayson

Dear dale,

Last week, my friend and colleague, Congressman Anthony Weiner, did something very good, and very gutsy.

He released a report on Goldline, Glenn Beck’s prime advertising sponsor. Weiner’s report showed that this firm, which sells gold coins, rips off its customers while benefitting directly from Beck’s Chicken Little lunacy about the economy. Every time Beck screams that there is an impending Obama-led government takeover of the economy and your savings aren’t safe, he’s making a sales pitch for this sleazy advertiser.

You see, Beck’s ratings have recently crashed, and most of his reputable advertisers have deserted him. So he’s resorted to scaring – and then cheating – his viewers.

Now that he’s been exposed, Beck has spent the last week using his big media platform to attack and undermine Weiner – he even set up an attack website designed to damage Weiner’s political standing.

This is what happens when someone with guts actually takes on power. Power strikes back.

So I’m encouraging you to help Weiner with a campaign contribution.

This collusion between big media, conservative commentators, and quack economics is a scam, but it is powerful if it remains unopposed. And we need to support people like Weiner, who have the guts to go after right-wing lunacy at the source.

Please support my friend Anthony.

He showed guts. He deserves our support.


Alan Grayson

Paid for by the Committee to Elect Alan Grayson

In my Email: FromTurnOff Fox News

Dear Faithful Followers of Turn Off FOX:

Turn Off FoxFirst of all, we would like to thank each and every one of you for taking the pledge in our effort to educate others about the rampant and intentional distortion of the truth on FOX News and joining us in attempting to get it turned off as much as possible. We have received a number of e-mails, quite a few from people who support the cause, and also many from people who have been shocked that anyone would oppose the media arm of the right wing. Believe us, we have rankled more than a couple of conservatives, and that probably means that, with your help, we’re probably doing something right.

It could be that our articles about the fallacious statements and distorted truths on FOX News have simply disturbed too many people into denial. Here’s a review of some of our recent work:

Very soon, you’ll be able to catch updates on articles like the ones above and many more by following us on Twitter at We will also gladly welcome any stories or comments you would like to send us on that account to keep the lively discussion an ongoing one. As always, feel free to send in tips on stories or your own personal experiences in terms of trying to get FOX turned off at, aswell.
Besides the articles, we have other tools to help you exhibit your own distaste of FOX News, and just in time for the holidays. For those looking to spread the word passively while possibly swerving through traffic aggressively, we have a Turn Off FOX bumper sticker just for you. People looking more toward reminding others that keeping FOX off is as important as a daily glass of milk may find our Turn Off FOX magnet could help liven up the refrigerator. Lastly, individuals looking for a little dose of civil disobedience to add to a full day of political awareness may want to look up our TV B-Gone remote control that can turn off any North American TV. Be warned that people use TV B-Gone at their own risk. Also be warned that it is very effective at long distances and could help turn off FOX News even in public places, assuming! one so desired.
Just to be clear, though, we are not attempting to oppose free speech. Rather, we simply promote turning off the vitriol and terribly unbalanced “news” coverage on FOX as well as helping people to seek out journalism with a bit more integrity from other sources. Still, none of what we have to say will mean anything without your help. We can provide you with the evidence to help illustrate to others just how useless FOX News is as a news organization and the tools to help deliver the message, but we need your help to engage others and spread the news. One of the easiest ways for you to show further support would be to forward this e-mail to others and help get them to take the pledge, as well.
Once again, thank all of you for already taking the pledge and for helping the cause against FOX Fraudcasting. We look forward to hearing your success stories and tips at, and remember to keep looking for our updates at the website and on Twitter.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Progressive,
%d bloggers like this: