Ishtarmuz’s Letter to Abe Lincoln, Another Rebuttal to Mark Williams’ Letter to Lincoln

Ishtarmuz’s Letter to Abe Lincoln, Another Rebuttal to Mark Williams’ Letter to Lincoln.  Link:  http://bit.ly/azPikf

April 10, 1865

Dear President Lincoln,

You are about to receive one of the most despicable letters you will ever get and I just thought I ought to warn you. The claim will be made that it is satire, but at its core it shows more hidden truths about, not only what will euphemistically come to be called the Tea Party, but our country. You don’t need to know anything about this Tea Party group before you read, you will recognize it.  I have taken the liberty to show the letter now so that you will not be so shocked when you receive it:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

First off, if I were writing you Mr. Lincoln, then I would want to clearly hide the fact of how well I understood the mind of a southern bigot. The presumption here being that all blacks were enslaved uneducated southerners that talked like their masters at the time of the War of Secession. After all, many of the generational masters never did a days’ work in their lives, but owned the real workers. What are they to do without someone doing all the work for them? Well,  someone like George Washington Carver will come along and invent, but not patent, hundreds of useful ideas from which they can make a profit. How patriotic and forgiving of such a black man. He was born last year.

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the ‘tea party movement’.

The notion that the Tea Party has anything to do with the abolitionist movement, other than both being fringe groups bent on turning the Republican party into something they are not, and reminding you that the Republicans went kicking and screaming to the cause both times to ensure the survival of the party, just smacks of an irony too pathetic to miss.

The tea party position to “end the bailouts” for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

I am more than disgusted with this satire here, I am incensed. His modest proposal that we should not just eat our misbehaved corporate children, but we should feed them to the blacks by way of having the NAACP doing the serving, just is not right.  I think that if we are going to eat the corporations, then everyone should get their fair share.

And the ridiculous idea of “reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government.” What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

I would wonder just how unthinking, compassionless and ruthless certain sectors of a society would have to be in order to need such a big government. Maybe, the gentry should lose their land, Mr. Lincoln, to big government because they gained it off the backs of slaves. If we don’t do this those gentry will be allowed to keep it and turn the slaves into near slave sharecroppers for another hundred years. Clearly, we never have had a race problem as much as a  greed problem of the privileged few that have used race to cover theft. Entitlement my ass.  The only people crying about entitlements to the poor are those that support those entitled bastards that profit off them. I should think reparations would have no color.

The racist tea parties also demand that the government “stop the out of control spending.” Again, they directly target coloreds. That means we Coloreds would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

This is suggests to me, Mr. Lincoln, that you need to explain to the tea party what it means to be half-baked.  Just as the prejudgment of racism is half-baked, so too is the idea of stopping spending in the middle of a recession. Maybe we can spend money on putting people back to work in the South now and end this racist rant that will fester for another hundred and fifty years?  Maybe, I shouldn’t mention that idea, it might get you shot. After all, those jobs would go to blacks and that would ruin their sharecropper plan.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr Lincoln, all I hear here is about things, and the power over things. It is with that power over things they wish to control people.  So like a three year old saying ‘it is mine’, they don’t wish to share, but retain control over that little bit of soulless self they have left. History, both past and current, has shown us that they will not share, no matter how Christian they claim to be.

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

And we have heard as much from some segments of the tea party.  Too bad this was not just satire, but just what some idiots think should happen.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom’s Nephew NAACP Head Colored Person

I am beyond words here that I can even write, Mr. Lincoln. Don’t go to Ford’s Theater on April 14th  because Our American Cousin does not end well for any of us.

Sincerely Yours,

Ishtarmuz

Letter as seen:

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php/2010/07/16/mark-williams-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/

http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/07/tea-partier-mark-williams-writes-open-letter-to-lincoln-from-the-coloreds/

http://ebonymompolitics.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/tea-party-express-leader-mark-williams-letter-proves-the-naacp-was-right/

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/tea-party-leader-mark-williams-mocks-naacp

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201007150012

and  was originally here:

http://www.marktalk.com/blog/?p=10387

What The Teuton Said

by Ishtarmuz

Consider the old bigoted canards of 19^th and 20^th Century psuedoscience suggesting a genetic underpinning to the tides of various ethnic thinking.  Is their any truth to the Teutonic character? I would say no, on principle, since I think it a stereotype, considering even ones backed by some evidence as  illusionary. . .

UkkedoerendunandKlikkaklakkaklaskaklopatzklatschabattacreppycrottygraddaghsemmihsammihnouithappluddyappladdypkonpkot.

. . . However, I am  not thinking particularly about the Teutonic authoritarian personality, but just the authoritarian personality. Maybe, the cultural ethos in this part of the world historically led to more people so characterized, maybe not. There may be some evidence that rigid upbringing might play a large role in the making of a racist expression of narcissistic rage endemic to such unempathetic worldviews. I would be loath to consider such evidence because the evidence itself rubs against the grain of my liberal view of how the world works. With that in mind, consider I must, the building of national characters with the rise of nationalism speaking more to the role of nurture rather than to nature.

Perkodhuskurunbarggruauyagokgorlayorgromgremmitghundhurthrumathunaradidillifaititillibumullunukkunun.

So, given a child before they are three, can you make them a Hitler or an Einstein? Within limits. This, at least, moves the idea out of the genetic to the behavioral regime, a place where the more behavioral among us would be happy to consider. Flash. Dark. Though I fear any day now to hear about a study showing convincing evidence for the existence of a genetic predisposition for all sorts of very specific behaviors, not the least of which would be the fear of thunder.

Bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnthunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk.

The selective attention and reinforcement of what an in-group feels valuable to its survival can be quite over-determined by framing specific memories into the historic examples that prove simplistic bivalent beliefs. Flash. Dark. Given the right circumstances, the right narcissistic mirror could and did rise to power more than once to reflect all the rage that slumbers in the depths of generationally ingrained racist self fulfilling prophecies. Such is the manner that Hitlers are made, not born.

Those taught to not question authority, that duty and honor are more important than empathy and flexibility, and that property is more important than fraternity, all explain how nationalism has always trumped liberalism from the French Revolution onward.  So what do you say of Milgram’s experiment?  In just a simple setting with a person of authority asking you to shock someone to death on a lame pretext, over sixty percent complied. Does that not suggest that we, like in the Lord of Flies, live with just a thin veneer of civilization ready to explode into anarchy leading to a slavery promoted by the next demagogue that captures our imagination?

Thingcrooklyexineverypasturesixsixlikencehimaroundhersthemaggerbykinkinkankanwithdownmindlookingated …  Bladyughfoulmoecklenburgwhurawhorascortastrumpapornanennykocksapastippatappatupperstrippuckputtanach.

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

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: http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/

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.

Courage,

Alan Grayson

Paid for by the Committee to Elect Alan Grayson

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Opposing Gay Marriage By Bill O’Reilly

Ishtarmuz’s Rebuttal to: Opposing Gay Marriage By Bill O’Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, May 21, 2009

… There is no stopping the gay nuptials now, even though most Americans say they are opposed to extending marital law to same sex couples.

Yes, there is no stopping it.  Why? It is because being gay is an identity and those that embrace that identity already marry.  They jump the broomstick as it were.

Right now, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and Maine allow gays to marry. New Hampshire will soon do so. Once the legislatures of New York and New Jersey get finished taxing the life out of their citizens, they, too, will most likely pass gay marriage. And, even though the folks in California voted down gay nuptials, the Supreme Court there is desperately trying to find a way to nullify the vote.

What happened to the rule of law? Are we returning to the anti-civil rights arguments of the 50s combined with the propaganda techniques of the 30s? Is this fair and balanced bigotry?

A new CNN/Opinion Research Poll says 54% of Americans oppose gay marriage, while 45% support it. But if you oppose gay marriage, your opinion makes you a bigot. … That’s what the Miss California controversy was all about.

Where have we heard this ‘we the people’ line before?  That front groups that oppose gay marriage appear to be affiliated with other corporatist front groups that oppose anything that might cut into their profits.  Is this is the great great moral stand that O’Reilly touts? Does he stand with the Mormon Church because they know the evils of gay marriage, like plural marriage, or because they know its power?

Your humble correspondent doesn’t really care much about gay marriage because I believe it is no danger to the republic and the deity can sort all this stuff out after we’re dead. I take a libertarian position on issues like gay marriage because I want all Americans to be able to pursue happiness equally.

Humble is not the word I would have chosen. The idea that this is a libertarian view is de facto absurd. Is this a separate but equal argument against gay marriage? No government sanctions on marriage of any kind would be more libertarian.

… most Americans believe heterosexual marriage deserves a special place in our society. Our Judeo-Christian traditions, which have made the United States the most prosperous and just society the world has ever known, speak to a family built around a responsible mother and a father—certainly the optimum when it comes to raising children.

Let us not forget to do some drum beats for the great American way while we are at it. Pleas to common practice (tradition) and authority are bad enough, but conflating correlation to causation, and just plain rallying of nationalist fervor are quite beyond the pale. None of this is proof, lest it be of pandering to the right. It does remind me of journalistic propaganda from somewhere though. Reality may not have a right wing spin, but O’Reilly sure does.

I also understand that once America changes marital law for one group, homosexuals, it will have to allow plural marriages and other types of situations under “equal justice for all.” Also, there is no question the Scandinavian marriage model of anything goes has led to a drastic decline in traditional marriage.

Oh, I see, Gay Marriage is like a gateway drug? And yes, if you legalize something, then the tradition changes.  Hopefully for the better, promoting the values of marriage, not just the form.  Like many other issues defined by the right, this is all form and no substance.

…When was the last time you saw a Catholic cardinal or archbishop speak against gay marriage on television? …

After some more left wing biased media bashing, then he goes after the Catholic Church for being silent. I wonder where he got that from?

The truth is that pro-gay marriage forces have succeeded in their bigot-branding campaign and will not stop with marriage. … The left knows it has a powerful cannon with this bigot stuff.

Lets review: A bigot is someone with half baked ideas that asserts self serving views without proof against a group of people he knows little about and refuses to hear evidence to the contrary. Yes, the left does appear to have a point.

So the gay marriage debate is just about over. Conservative states won’t pass it, but liberal states will. There was a time when we were truly the united states. No longer.

Oh yes, then there is the fear monger divisiveness to top it off. We have different models of the universe so we will go to war over which side of the egg we crack open first. Pick your issue. Pick your commentator.  Fox News defining the issue is like Al Qaeda defining terrorism. Interestingly the divide on this issue is generational, not geographic.  Logan’s Run anyone?

In my email:Fox’s Murdoch: Glenn Beck “was right” — Help us go after Fox

Rupert Murdoch — head of Fox’s parent company — said Glenn Beck was right when he called President Obama a “racist.” Now he’s trying to backpedal, without disowning Beck. It’s time to publicly hold Murdoch accountable. Demand he put an end to Fox’s race-baiting, or admit he agrees with it:

Dear Dale,

Last week, when asked about Glenn Beck calling President Obama “racist,” Rupert Murdoch, chairman of Fox News Channel’s parent company (News Corp) said “if you actually assess what he was talking about, [Beck] was right.”¹

On Tuesday, after his endorsement of Beck’s race-baiting started to draw attention,² Murdoch claimed, through a spokesperson, that he didn’t mean he agrees with Beck.³ It’s ridiculous — what else could he have possibly meant?

Murdoch calls the shots at Fox News, and he’s just made it clear that Fox’s problem with race starts in his office. Now that he’s been caught, he’s trying to play dumb — he doesn’t want to be held accountable for Beck’s rhetoric, but he won’t denounce or stop it either.

It won’t work, if we stand up. Tell Murdoch he has a choice — he can stand by the fact that he agrees with Glenn Beck; or he can tell us why he doesn’t and what he’s going to do about it. If enough of us call him out, we can create a powerful conversation about Fox’s race-baiting that will help us hold them accountable at the highest level.

Please sign the petition to Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

While Beck is the worst offender on the Fox News Channel, the network has a long, deep history of engaging in inflammatory racial rhetoric: attacking Black leaders, Black culture, and Black institutions.^4,5,6 And a number of Murdoch’s recent business decisions suggest that he is consciously building a media empire — at Fox News and elsewhere — that attracts viewers by appealing to racial fear and paranoia.

Last month, Murdoch put Don Imus (fired from MSNBC for his infamous “nappy headed hos” comment) back on television on the Fox Business Network.⁷ And a few weeks ago, Murdoch personally fired Marc Lamont Hill — one of Fox News’ few black commentators — in response to a racially charged smear campaign led by a News Corp shareholder, who said Hill has “reputation of defending cop killers and racists.”⁸

Murdoch’s right-hand men

Murdoch chooses his employees carefully, and his agenda is obvious when you look at the people he’s chosen to run his media organizations.

Roger Ailes, the president of Fox News, made his name by using racial paranoia to propel Republican politicians to victory, starting in the 60s. He engineered key elements of Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy, and a notorious race-baiting ad campaign that helped the first President Bush defeat Michael Dukakis. Ailes was also the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh’s failed television show.⁹

Another News Corp property, the New York Post, led by Col Allan, also has a troubling record on race. Earlier this year, the Post caused an uproar after printing a cartoon that appeared to depict President Obama as a dead monkey, covered in blood after being shot by police. Instead of taking the widespread critical response to the cartoon seriously, Allan issued a short, insensitive statement that took no responsibility, and attacked critics of the cartoon.¹⁰

Last month, the Post fired a Latina editor, Sandra Guzman, apparently as retaliation for having spoken out against the cartoon when it was published. Guzman is now suing News Corp, the newspaper, and Allan. She says that the Post is a “hostile work environment where female employees and employees of color have been subjected to pervasive and systemic discrimination and/or unlawful harassment based on their gender, race, color and/or national origin.” Guzman says that Col Allan and others at the paper routinely made inappropriate sexual and racial comments. She also says that the paper’s D.C. bureau chief told her that the Post’s goal was to “destroy Barack Obama.”¹¹

Holding Murdoch, Beck and Fox News accountable

When Murdoch publicly endorsed some of Beck’s most inflammatory comments, it seemed he was making it very clear that he approves of Fox’s race-baiting. Now, apparently after realizing how damaging it would be for him to publicly support the rhetoric that cost Glenn Beck 80 advertisers, he’s trying to backpedal. But Murdoch is not willing to distance himself from Beck either. He knows that he could face a backlash from Fox’s viewers if he appears critical of the racially charged programming that attracts many of them to the network in the first place.

So Murdoch wants to have it both ways — he wants to build a network that makes money by pandering to racial fear and paranoia, but he doesn’t want Fox to be seen as cable’s home for race-baiting.

We can’t let him get away with it. Murdoch made a mistake by speaking too openly about what he and his media organizations stand for. He rarely makes mistakes like this, and we need to seize the opportunity to expose Fox’s problem with race.

It starts by demanding that Murdoch explain what he meant, and be clear about whether or not race-baiting is part of the program at Fox. He may or may not respond, but if enough of us speak out, we can create a conversation that makes it clear who is ultimately responsible for Fox’s race-baiting. It’s just one step in starting to bring some accountability to the leadership of Fox News and News Corp — but it’s an important one.

Join us in calling out Rupert Murdoch, and ask your friends and family to do the same. It only takes a minute:

http://www.colorofchange.org/murdoch/?id=2335-1078007

Thanks and Peace,

— James, Gabriel, William, Dani and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
November 11th, 2009

Help support our work. ColorOfChange.org is powered by YOU — your energy and dollars. We take no money from lobbyists or large corporations that don’t share our values, and our tiny staff ensures your contributions go a long way. You can contribute here:

https://secure.colorofchange.org/contribute/

References

1. Rupert Murdoch Interview, Sky News, 11-06-09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsboAwzj7aY

2. “An Open Letter to Rupert Murdoch: What exactly do you mean?” Huffington Post, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/yg2yj58

3. “Murdoch doesn’t consider Obama racist: Spox,” Politico, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/y8fhg4n

4. “On FOX, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson and Mike Gallagher attacked Kwanzaa,” Media Matters, 12-23-04
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412230012

5. “Matalin: ‘I think these civil rights leaders are nothing more than racists. And they’re keeping … their African-American brothers enslaved,'” Media Matters, 2-09-06
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602090003

6. “Defending Bennett’s comments, Rev. Peterson cited alleged violence at Superdome to claim that most blacks ‘lack moral character,'” Media Matters, 10-03-05
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510030005

7. “Breaking: Don Imus Joins Fox Biz,” TV Newser, 09-03-09
http://tinyurl.com/mdtn4x

8. “FNC Liberal Pundit Marc Lamont Hill Fired,” TV Newser, 10-16-09
http://tinyurl.com/yzx7xyd

9. “Fox President Roger Ailes’ History Of Race-Baiting,” Media Matters, 10-30-09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnNyEKAZIO4

10. “NY Post Defends Cartoon, Slams Al Sharpton” Huffington Post, 02-18-09
http://tinyurl.com/cdmhmm

11. “New York Post Lawsuit: Shocking Allegations Made By Fired Employee Sandra Guzman,” Huffington Post, 11-10-09
http://tinyurl.com/y964vmb

 

 

 

 

The Twisted Thought of Glenn Beck

A recent Glenn Beck show took another of our president’s speeches and twisted it to feed the right wing hater blogs.   I begin to think that he thinks such blogs contain primary source information.  This is a typical example of a quote Glenn Beck used to go on a rant that is now so ubiquitous on the Internet that it is down right scary:

OBAMA: “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security…

Any fairly intelligence human being can follow Obama’s thought in the quote. No, it isn’t the KGB or the Schutzstaffel.  We already have the FBI. Might Obama be talking about our first responders or even a Peace Corp type force? Is Glenn Beck damning our men in blue and the like? Evil Army?

If the President offered everyone free cherry ice cream, then Glenn Beck would be right there saying, “see it is red.”  Saying, “I told you he was socialist.”  This is the level of social discourse that Glenn Beck has reduced his viewers.  It is right up there with the World Wrestling Federation for its intellectual stimulation and honest reporting of the real world events.

Glenn Beck: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is “just as strong, just as powerful” as the military?

We need one because the military marching in the streets is fascism. Civilian national security force (i.e., local militia, called police and deputized agents of the people, Peace Corps, AmeriCorps) monitoring of terrorists is reasonable aim. It is more reasonable than fomenting war across the globe while not protecting those within our borders. This is actually the second Amendment meaning. Glenn Beck, are you against the second amendment of the constitution? I know twelfth grade was hard to get through, but American History was included. I wonder what a well-regulated militia might look like? Not the vigilantes on the border, for sure.

Glenn Beck: Here’s why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

Well, the last I heard we were at war with terrorist and supporters of terrorists. I guess you might fit into one of those categories. So maybe you do have reason to fear. Glenn Beck the liberals are not responding to you for the same reason you don’t argue with a drunk. Drunks pose no rational argument to fight and do not respond to what you say in a rational manner either. I have read three sentences and, you sir; have made no sense, common, or otherwise, in what you say.  You are clearly more comfortable putting up straw men to argue with rather than actually debating with someone armed with facts.  You appeal to belief, authority, fear, emotion, flattery, popularity and common practice.  These are fallacies all.  You have not demonstrated even the most basic understanding of a well-formed syllogism.  In short, you are illogical.

Glenn Beck: It’s clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist.

First off, the Hispanics crossing the border come from a different culture, not a different race. Unless you want to classify Italian-Americans and Greek-Americans a different race as well. Such misinformation shows a lack of education, if not that, then blatant racism on its face. And who are these people that call criticizers of crossing the border racist? I have seen more Right wing bloggers wanting immigration reform suggesting they are being called racist than anyone actually doing the calling. What I have heard is that those that object to the legislation suggest that the immigration legislation had a racist agenda.  That means it is more fear based than fact based and setting up another enclave of institutional ethnocentrism feeding the world opinion that we remain ugly Americans.

The Hispanics I know are a pretty conservative Christian group. They don’t want their jobs undercut anymore than anyone else. They, I predict, in fact, are going to be the future of a more rational Republican Party. Yes, they have sympathy for the oppressed, and yes they will defend themselves against wild-eyed slurs, but no, they are not crying racism anymore than I believe you intentionally advocating for it.  Border crossings make their communities much less safe than it makes yours.  The truth hidden in this last sentence is the heart of the issue.  Why is their any their community at all?

Glenn Beck: It can’t be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren’t even at war against Islamic extremists anymore.

I last heard we had a war going on two fronts, at least.  If it is not the terrorist we are fighting, then we are spending a lot of money for nothing.  So we need all our troops called home now.  Is that what you believe?  Maybe we should bring the troops home and fund health care reform?

Obama: “Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not and will never be at war and with Islam,”

That is pretty clear. We are at war with ALL terrorists.

Obama: “In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”  [Mr. Obama continued by adding that the U.S. relationship will not only be] “based on opposition to terrorism.”

Beck: Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

I think that skinheads with guns might be more to the point.  What is not to the point is that every event that upsets Glenn Beck does not rise to the level a terrorist attack except in his mind. Unless what he means to convey is that it his worldview that is collapsing under an attack by a fusillade of lucid moments.

Sound bites and photo ops are not facts, like Glenn Beck thinking that the color of a man carrying an automatic provides sufficient context to make any point whatsoever.  Even if the point was to impugn the motives of those that used the photo op originally without showing that he was Black.  There is nothing that can be implied from the information shown other than that Glenn Beck is an ass and has three-fifths of a brain.